Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1
1.2 NEED FOR THE STUDY
2
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY
1.5 METHODOLOGY
3
SOURCE OF DATA:
SAMPLING PROCESS:
4
1.6 PERIOD OF THE STUDY
5
2. Review of Literature
In recent decades, however, the process of managing people has become more formalized
and specialized. Many of the old performance appraisal methods have been absorbed into
the concept of Performance Management, which aims to be a more extensive and
comprehensive process of management. Some of the developments that have shaped
Performance Management in recent years are the differentiation of employees or talent
management, management by objectives and constant monitoring and review. Its
development was accelerated by the following factors:
6
Figure 2.1 – Graphical view of the difference between Performance Appraisal and
Management
Source: www.peoplestreme.com
Most organizations have some type of employee appraisal system, and many are
experiencing the shortcomings of manual staff evaluation systems. When discussing
workforce performance the most commonly asked question is “How does Performance
Management differ from performance appraisals or staff reviews”? Performance
Management is used to ensure that employees’ activities and outcomes are congruent
with the organization’s objectives and entails specifying those activities and outcomes
that will result in the firm successfully implementing the strategy. An effective
Performance Management process establishes the groundwork for excellence by:
7
Focusing on setting clear performance objectives and expectations through the use
of results, actions and behaviors,
Defining clear development plans as part of the process, and
Conducting regular discussions throughout the performance cycle which include
such things as coaching, mentoring, feedback and assessment.
Performance appraisal properly describes a process of judging past performance and not
measuring that performance against clear and agreed objectives. Performance
Management shifts the focus away from just an annual event to an on-going process.
Figure 2.1 is a process diagram that provides a graphical view of the major differences
between the two processes.
Most recent research suggests that annual staff reviews are generally perceived as a
difficult and painful process by both managers and employees. As there are typically no
objectives which are set in appraisal systems, there is no link to strategic or operational
outcomes. If the CEO’s objective was to increase margins by 3%, employees may be
aware of the CEO’s intent but they are usually not measured on this objective in their
individual appraisal. Therefore, there is no linkage in the appraisal review and no linkage
at a team or department level.
Misdirected Bonuses
This situation has been illustrated many times where employees and managers have
received favorable reviews and bonuses and yet the organization has not achieved its
goals. The organization may be losing millions of dollars and yet still paying out
bonuses to its managers and employees.
High stress levels for both managers and employees also become a factor. They both
know they will be judged on the outcome of the appraisal and the fallout is often
8
destructive rather than constructive. The reasoning behind this is that there are rarely any
pre-defined mesaures or objectives and the employee review is not based on any
considered evaluation criteria. The employees’ remuneration and future are at stake and
the goodwill of the managers future resources are also at stake. This leads to high stress
in the case of both individuals and this is a poor emotional state in which to have a
thorough discussion about employee performance.
Where the appraisal system is poorly communicated, both the employee and manager
enter these discussions with low confidence levels. This is due to a lack of “rules” as to
how to go about the appraisal process and a lack of understanding of the expected
outcomes. As this process is infrequent, it is viewed by the employee as an opportunity to
discuss remuneration, promotion prospects and other issues related to the employee. This
means the discussion is dominated by employee content rather than what the manager
needs the employee to do for the next year. This leads to vague definition of performance
goals and perpetuates the system of poorly defined and executed appraisals.
As an annual staff review is so infrequent, both managers and employees find it difficult
to remember what actually happened during the year. Both typically come to the meeting
ill prepared with little meaningful content to discuss. This makes the appraisal more
difficult and frustrates both the employee and manager.
Bad Timing
More often than not, the annual appraisal is executed on the employees’ anniversary
which does not coincide with any particular performance period. If appraisals are
conducted annually on the anniversary date, it is only possible to align at best only 50%
of your staff with future objectives, assuming there is an even distribution of start dates
across themployee workforce. Given that most appraisal systems are not automated, there
is poor reporting and therefore low visibility as to who did or did not achieve their
objectives.
9
Subjective Manager Opinion
This means that an employees’ future is wholly dependent on their manager's highly
subjective opinion. The CEO or other executive management does not have clear vision
as to who achieved their objectives and who did not. The outcome for the CEO is that
they do not have the ability to see failure as it is occurring. Instead, they see failure
after the fact and radical adjustments are then required to repair the situation. By using
standalone appraisal systems, the outcome for the line manager is that they have
additional pressure applied to them, to fix a problem which has become a major issue and
which could have been otherwise identified and fixed in a very timely fashion.
Given that annual appraisals are only conducted once yearly, most line managers only
seriously think and plan once a year. The consequences are poor resource management,
put-out-the-fire management and costly and reactive problem fixing on the fly. Given that
most appraisal systems are manual and on paper, the data arising from an excellent
performance typically does not find its way into the succession planning process.
Employees are therefore often disillusioned to find that they have been passed over for
further development or a promotion when they have performed strongly for several years.
This is a primary cause for employees leaving the organization. Most appraisal systems
do not feature a competency assessment or an active development plan that both the
employee and manager have mutually agreed to. Staff often gets disillusioned and leave
the organization if they can see no personal development prospects or if personal
development has not occurred in practice for the last several years, despite numerous
promises.
10
No Consequence For Non-Participation
Given that most appraisal systems are manual, reporting is weak and therefore
compliance reporting is not visible. This inevitably means that managers learn that they
do not have to perform reviews and therefore they don’t because there is no negative
consequence for them. Equally, employees learn that there is no consequence to not being
reviewed, they lose faith in management and invariably look for somewhere else to work.
Most manual appraisal systems suffer from sub 30% compliance and can get to this point
after only 18 months of operation i.e. roughly one to one and a half performance terms.
Communication Improves
The employee and manager communicate more frequently and agree on changed
objectives to suit continuing changes in conditions and priorities. This is an inclusive and
collaborative process, which ensures that the employee has input and does not feel they
have wasted the year. The employee works towards specific objectives that are relevant.
If the organisation is using a Performance Management product that has a performance
diary, both the manager and employee attend the review meeting with copies of their
performance diary notes. This contains content from the performance period to be
11
reviewed. Given that both have content, they feel much better prepared and stress is
lower than if they were attending a meeting not aware of the subject matter.
If the organization has a system with a performance diary, then both parties are prepared
with relevant content to discuss. They have diary notes that relate to performance during
the entire performance period. This raises confidence and reduces stress levels. Both
parties feel more comfortable and they can have a content rich and factual discussion
about performance.
Given that these performance reviews happen more frequently, the discussion centers on
performance of objectives rather than being dominated by the employees’ needs. The
needs of the business are discussed more frequently to achieve specific performance
outcomes. This means both the employee and manager communicate more effectively
and achieve better outcomes. Emotionally charged discussions tend to be displaced by
business focused discussions on achievement of objective outcomes.
12
operational objectives are set at the beginning of the performance period. Formal
performance reviews are then conducted quarterly or half yearly and enable management
to direct and fine tune effort in relation to the objectives.
By conducting more frequent reviews, objectives can be adjusted and modified to suit
changing business conditions. This dramatically increases the probability that the
objectives are relevant and are able to be acted upon during the performance period.
Given that most Performance Management systems require managers and employees to
commit to a development plan, employees experience real personal development and
become more engaged with the organization. They feel part of the organization and start
to understand that they and the organization are interdependent. The organization is
developing the employee and the employee is working towards developing the
organization by achieving its goals. The majority of Performance Management systems
are able to provide graphical compliance reports. Therefore, the setting of objectives and
development plans for employees can no longer be ignored. Employees see real planning,
are involved in setting meaningful objectives and have input into personal development
plans which benefit both themselves and the organization. In all, this results in an
13
engaged workforce who are extremely committed to achieving real outcomes for the
organization.
Several studies have been conducted in Australia that indicates the predominant method
of assessing employees in Australia is appraisal. During 2004, Associate Professor Alan
Nankervis of Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology conducted a study of 992
Australian organisations. One of the outcomes was that only 2.4% of organizations
reviewed their employees against objectives, the remaining 97.5% were a combination of
some type of appraisal.
What the survey results imply is that Australian managers are performing appraisals, not
performance reviews and objective setting. The results may also mean that managers are
not targeting their teams to achieving strategic goals which are at all time-bound. Usually,
employees who are not formally reviewed for a year or more are expending work effort in
a manner or direction which is not readily visible to their manager. This lack of employee
engagement is leading to disaffection from the employees who can make and want to
make a difference to the organization. In our view, appraisals add very little value to the
performance of an organization and in some circumstances may actually be detrimental to
organizations who wish to move towards Performance Management. A contributing
factor may be that line managers who have been conducting appraisals have also seen
14
little, if any, impact on departmental or team performance as a consequence of
conducting these appraisals.
PeopleStreme conducted several research studies in focus groups over the last four years
and during seminars on Performance Management. To summaries the findings, 87% of
organizations have some type of appraisal system. However, this is usually referred to as
the Performance Management system. Of the 87% that have these systems, 95% were
manual systems without performance objectives or development plans. It was clear from
the research that many organizations incorrectly view manual annual appraisal systems as
Performance Management systems. Organizations are increasingly adopting
Performance Management systems. However, organizations in both Australia and the
USA are experiencing 100% to 300% yearly increases in organizations acquiring
Performance Management systems exceeding the existing forecast rate.
15
7. Checklists
8. Free from easy method
9. Critical incidents
10. Group appraisal
11. Field review method
Modern Methods:
1. Assessment center
2. Appraisal by results or management by objectives
3. Human asset accounting method
4. Behaviorally anchored rating sales
TRADITIONAL METHODS
The USA army during the FIRST WORLD WAR used this
technique. By this method, certain factors are selected for the purpose of analysis and a
scale is designed by the rater for each factor. A scale of man is also created for each
selected factor. The each man to be rated is compared with in the scale, and certain
scores for each factor are awarded to him. This method is used in job evaluation, and is
known as the factor comparison method.
16
3. Grading Method:
A – Outstanding,
B – Very good,
C – Good or average,
D – Fair,
E – Poor,
-B (or B-) very poor or hopeless.
The actual performance of an employee is then compared
with these grade definitions; such type of grading is done in semester examinations and
also in the selection of candidates by the public service commissions.
17
The rating scale method is easy to understand and easy to
use, and permits a statistical tabulation of scores. A ready comparison of scores among
the employees is possible.
be placed at the higher end or at the lower end of the scale. It requires the rater to
appraise an employee according to a predetermined distribution scale. Under this
system, it is assumed that it is possible and desirable to rate only to factors, viz., job
performance and promotability. For this purpose, a five point performance scale is used
without any descriptive statement. Employees are placed between the two extremes of
‘good’ and ‘bad’ job performance.
18
7. Check List:
19
8. Critical Incident Method:
20
2.5 RESEARCH DESIGN OF THE STUDY
21
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN ICICI Limited.,
HYDERABAD:
Stages of Appraisal:
22
Appraisal Ratings:
Factor Score:
ach of these factors has to be assessed on a 5-point scale multiplied
by the specified weight age from each other factor. Assessment of each factor will be
done separately by the reporting officer and the reviewing officer.
REVIEW DISCUSSION:
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
23
PERFORMANCE RATING FOR INDIRECT EMPLOYEES IN ICICI
Limited., HYDEARBAD.
STAGES OF APPRAISAL:
The appraisal system consists of the following stages:
1. Appraisal rating of the workmen on job:
1. job knowledge
2. efficiency of work
3. volume of output
4. Quality of output.
2. General comments and overall assessment including development of the appraisal
leading to the final assessment.
3. A review discussion between the appraiser and appraise.
4. Follow up action, if any, to be taken.
24
A Final overall assessment should be arrived at as under:
Total appraisal score:
200 and above - outstanding
180 and above - very good
150 and above - marginal
120 and above - poor
Review Discussion:
A review discussion between the appraisee and the
reporting officer will the place after the appraisal of the employee is completed both by
the reporting and reviewing officers.
During the review discussion, the appraisee should give a
list of the factors to the appraisal of the employee is completed him approximately on
the areas of strengths and weaknesses. He should specially indicate the lines on which
the appraisee should make improvements and give him proper guideline. The response
of the appraisee should there after be recorded.
25
Business group director
Executive director not below the rank of GM
Chief of unit
Representative of director, finance
Representative of director, personnel
C). Unit chief and above- chairman, managing director and functional director:
The above performance shall also review the ratings of low
performers with the reference to the constraints, if any, faced by the appraisee. The
committees may also recommend development through training or change of job to
enable such low performers to improve their performance.
FOLLOW-UP ACTION:
26
CHAPTER-3
INDUSTRY PROFILE
A bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits and channels those deposits into
lending activities. Banks primarily provide financial services to customers while
enriching investors. Government restrictions on financial activities by banks vary over
time and location. Banks are important players in financial markets and offer services
such as investment funds and loans. In some countries such as Germany, banks have
historically owned major stakes in industrial corporations while in other countries such as
the United States banks are prohibited from owning non-financial companies. In Japan,
banks are usually the nexus of a cross-share holding entity known as the keiretsu. In
France, bancassurance is prevalent, as most banks offer insurance services (and now real
estate services) to their clients.
The level of government regulation of the banking industry varies widely, with countries
such as Iceland, having relatively light regulation of the banking sector, and countries
such as China having a wide variety of regulations but no systematic process that can be
followed typical of a communist system.
The oldest bank still in existence is Monte dei Paschi di Siena, headquartered in Siena,
Italy, which has been operating continuously since 1472.
History
The name bank derives from the Italian word banco "desk/bench", used during the
Renaissance by Jewish Florentine bankers, who used to make their transactions above a
desk covered by a green tablecloth. However, there are traces of banking activity even in
ancient times, which indicates that the word 'bank' might not necessarily come from the
word 'banco'.
27
In fact, the word traces its origins back to the Ancient Roman Empire, where
moneylenders would set up their stalls in the middle of enclosed courtyards called
macella on a long bench called a bancu, from which the words banco and bank are
derived. As a moneychanger, the merchant at the bancu did not so much invest money as
merely convert the foreign currency into the only legal tender in Rome—that of the
Imperial Mint.
In fact, even today in Modern Greek the word Trapeza (Τράπεζα) means both a table and
a bank.
Banks act as payment agents by conducting checking or current accounts for customers,
paying cheques drawn by customers on the bank, and collecting cheques deposited to
customers' current accounts. Banks also enable customer payments via other payment
methods such as telegraphic transfer, EFTPOS, and ATM.
Banks provide almost all payment services, and a bank account is considered
indispensable by most businesses, individuals and governments. Non-banks that provide
28
payment services such as remittance companies are not normally considered an adequate
substitute for having a bank account.
Banks borrow most funds from households and non-financial businesses, and lend most
funds to households and non-financial businesses, but non-bank lenders provide a
significant and in many cases adequate substitute for bank loans, and money market
funds, cash management trusts and other non-bank financial institutions in many cases
provide an adequate substitute to banks for lending savings to.
Usually the definition of the business of banking for the purposes of regulation is
extended to include acceptance of deposits, even if they are not repayable to the
customer's order—although money lending, by itself, is generally not included in the
definition.
Unlike most other regulated industries, the regulator is typically also a participant in the
market, i.e. a government-owned (central) bank. Central banks also typically have a
monopoly on the business of issuing banknotes. However, in some countries this is not
the case. In the UK, for example, the Financial Services Authority licences banks, and
some commercial banks (such as the Bank of Scotland) issue their own banknotes in
addition to those issued by the Bank of England, the UK government's central bank.
29
3.4 Definition
Under English common law, a banker is defined as a person who carries on the business
of banking, which is specified as:
In most English common law jurisdictions there is a Bills of Exchange Act that codifies
the law in relation to negotiable instruments, including cheques, and this Act contains a
statutory definition of the term banker: banker includes a body of persons, whether
incorporated or not, who carry on the business of banking' (Section 2, Interpretation).
Although this definition seems circular, it is actually functional, because it ensures that
the legal basis for bank transactions such as cheques do not depend on how the bank is
organised or regulated.
The business of banking is in many English common law countries not defined by statute
but by common law, the definition above. In other English common law jurisdictions
there are statutory definitions of the business of banking or banking business. When
looking at these definitions it is important to keep in mind that they are defining the
business of banking for the purposes of the legislation, and not necessarily in general. In
particular, most of the definitions are from legislation that has the purposes of entry
regulating and supervising banks rather than regulating the actual business of banking.
However, in many cases the statutory definition closely mirrors the common law one.
Examples of statutory definitions:
30
Authority may prescribe for the purposes of this Act; (Banking Act (Singapore),
Section 2, Interpretation).
1. receiving from the general public money on current, deposit, savings or other
similar account repayable on demand or within less than [3 months] ... or with a
period of call or notice of less than that period;
2. paying or collecting cheques drawn by or paid in by customers[6]
Since the advent of EFTPOS (Electronic Funds Transfer at Point Of Sale), direct credit,
direct debit and internet banking, the cheque has lost its primacy in most banking systems
as a payment instrument. This has led legal theorists to suggest that the cheque based
definition should be broadened to include financial institutions that conduct current
accounts for customers and enable customers to pay and be paid by third parties, even if
they do not pay and collect cheques.
Bank statements are accounting records produced by banks under the various accounting
standards of the world. Under GAAP and IFRS there are two kinds of accounts: debit and
credit. Credit accounts are Revenue, Equity and Liabilities. Debit Accounts are Assets
and Expenses. This means you credit a credit account to increase its balance, and you
debit a debit account to decrease its balance.
This also means you debit your savings account every time you deposit money into it
(and the account is normally in deficit), while you credit your credit card account every
time you spend money from it (and the account is normally in credit).
However, if you read your bank statement, it will say the opposite—that you credit your
account when you deposit money, and you debit it when you withdraw funds. If you have
cash in your account, you have a positive (or credit) balance; if you are overdrawn, you
have a negative (or deficit) balance.
31
The reason for this is that the bank, and not you, has produced the bank statement. Your
savings might be your assets, but the bank's liability, so they are credit accounts (which
should have a positive balance). Conversely, your loans are your liabilities but the bank's
assets, so they are debit accounts (which should also have a positive balance).
32
CHAPTER-4
COMPANY PROFILE
ICICI Bank is India's largest private sector bank with total assets of Rs. 5,946.42
billion (US$ 99 billion) at March 31, 2014 and profit after tax Rs. 98.10 billion (US$
1,637 million) for the year ended March 31, 2014.ICICI Bank currently has a network of
History
1955
The Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Limited (ICICI) incorporated
at the initiative of the World Bank, the Government of India and representatives of Indian
industry, with the objective of creating a development financial institution for providing
ICICI emerges as the major source of foreign currency loans to Indian industry. Besides
funding from the World Bank and other multi-lateral agencies, ICICI was also among the
ICICI Bank was originally promoted in 1994 by ICICI Limited, an Indian financial
institution, and was its wholly-owned subsidiary. ICICI's shareholding in ICICI Bank was
reduced to 46% through a public offering of shares in India in fiscal 1998, an equity
offering in the form of ADRs listed on the NYSE in fiscal 2000, ICICI Bank's acquisition
33
market sales by ICICI to institutional investors in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002. ICICI was
formed in 1955 at the initiative of the World Bank, the Government of India and
financial institution for providing medium-term and long-term project financing to Indian
businesses.
In the 1990s, ICICI transformed its business from a development financial institution
offering only project finance to a diversified financial services group offering a wide
variety of products and services, both directly and through a number of subsidiaries and
affiliates like ICICI Bank. In 1999, ICICI become the first Indian company and the first
34
Financial Services Limited and ICICI Capital Services Limited, with ICICI Bank. The
merger was approved by shareholders of ICICI and ICICI Bank in January 2002, by the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in March 2002, and by the High Court of Judicature
at Mumbai and the Reserve Bank of India in April 2002. Consequent to the merger, the
ICICI group's financing and banking operations, both wholesale and retail, have been
integrated in a single entity
Profile
Ms. Chanda Kochhar is the Managing Director & CEO of ICICI Bank Limited. She is
widely recognised for her role in shaping the retail banking sector in India and for her
leadership of the ICICI Group, as well as her contributions to various forums in India and
globally.
Ms. Kochhar began her career, with the erstwhile ICICI Limited in 1984 and was
elevated to the Board of Directors of ICICI Bank in 2001. She was instrumental in
establishing ICICI Bank during the 1990s. She subsequently went on to head the
infrastructure finance and corporate banking business at the Bank. In 2000, she took on
35
the challenge of building the nascent retail business, focusing on technology, innovation,
process reengineering and scaling up of distribution and taking the Bank to a leadership
position in this business. During 2006-2007, she led the Bank’s corporate and
international banking businesses during a period of heightened activity and global
expansion by Indian companies. From 2007 to 2009, she was the Joint Managing
Director & Chief Financial Officer of the Bank. This was a critical period which saw
rapid change in the global financial landscape. She was elevated as the Managing
Director & CEO of ICICI Bank in 2009 and since then has been responsible for the
Bank’s diverse operations in India and overseas. She also chairs the boards of most of the
Bank’s principal subsidiaries, which include India’s leading private sector life and general
insurance companies.
In addition to her responsibilities at the ICICI Group, Ms. Kochhar is a member of the
India – Japan Business Leaders Forum, the US-India CEO Forum and the Board of Trade.
She is also the Deputy Chairman of the Indian Banks Association.
Ms. Kochhar is the chairperson of the board of governors at IIIT Vadodara. She is also
on the boards of the National Institute of Securities Markets and Institute of International
Finance.
She was the President of the International Monetary Conference, an organization that
annually brings together the chief executives of approximately 70 of the world’s largest
financial institutions from 30 countries, along with officials from government institutions
in 2015-16.
Ms. Kochhar has been a member of the Prime Minister’s Council on Trade & Industry,
the Board of Trade and High-Level Committee on Financing Infrastructure. She was also
the co-chair of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in 2011.
Ms. Kochhar received an honorary Doctor of Laws from Carleton University, Canada in
2014. The university conferred this award on Ms. Kochhar in recognition of her
pioneering work in the financial sector, effective leadership in times of economic crisis
and support for engaged business practices.
36
She was conferred with the Padma Bhushan, one of India's highest civilian honours, in
2011.
Ms. Kochhar has been recognised time and again in many of the prestigious power lists.
She has been featured in ‘The World’s 100 Most Powerful Women’ list by Forbes
International for seven consecutive years and the ‘Most Powerful Women in Business’ list
by Fortune India for five consecutive years. She was also named among TIME
magazine’s ‘100 Most Influential People in the world’ in 2015.
2017
Received the Woodrow Wilson Award for Global Corporate Citizenship by the
Woodrow Wilson Centre located in Washington, U.S.A. She is the first leader to
receive this award.
Featured in Business World magazine’s ‘BW’s Most Influential Women’ list as an
Evergreen Woman Leader
Voted the ‘Favorite Female Business Icon’ by women professionals aged 29 years
and above, according to a nationwide survey conducted by Talentedge, a Delhi
based education technology firm
2016
37
2015
Named as one of TIME magazines 100 Most Influential People in the world
Ranked 36th in the Forbes list of World's 100 Most Powerful Women
Featured in Forbes list of Asia's Power Women 2015
Ranked 1st in Fortune's list of 'Most Powerful Women of Asia- Pacific'.
Ranked 2nd in Fortune India's list of 'Most Powerful Women in Business'.
Awarded the 'Asia Game Changer Award' by the Asia Society
Featured in CNBC TV18's 'Top 15 Indian Business Icons'
2014
2013
Ranked 1st for the third consecutive year, in Fortune India's list of most powerful
business women
Conferred with the 'Best CEO – Private Sector' at the Forbes India Leadership
Awards
Ranked 4th, in Fortune's international list of '50 Most Powerful Women in
Business'
38
Awarded the Transformation Leader Award by NDTV Profit Business Leadership
Awards 2012
Ranked 65th in the Forbes list of 'The World's 100 Most Powerful Women'
Featured in the Power List of 25 most powerful women in India, by India Today,
for the third year in a row
The only Indian to be featured in the Dow Jones list of Most Influential Female
Executives in the World of the last decade. She is ranked 12th in the global list.
Awarded the Businessperson Of The Year 2012 by Business India. She is the first
woman recipient of this award in 31 years
Recipient from India of the 4th Asian Corporate Director Recognition Awards
2013
2012
Topped the list of '50 Most Powerful Women in Business' by Fortune India
Ranked 18th in Fortune's list of 2012 Businesspersons of the Year'. This is
Fortune's annual ranking of 50 global leaders who are 'the best in business'.
Ranked 5th, for the second consecutive year in Fortune's international list of '50
Most Powerful Women in Business'
Ranked 59th in the Worlds 100 Most Powerful Women by Forbes
Named amongst the nine Indian women in the Forbes' inaugural 'Asia Power
Businesswomen' list
Conferred with CNBC Asias India Business Leader of the Year award
Named the 'Business Person of the Year' by Business India. Ms. Kochhar is the
first woman to receive this award that was instituted 31 years ago.
Named amongst the '25 most powerful professional women' in the country by
India Today for the second year
39
2011
Ranked 5th by Fortune in the International list of '50 Most Powerful Women in
Business'
Ranked 17th among the '25 Most Powerful CEOs' in Asia by Fortune
Ranked 43rd 'Most Powerful Woman' in the world by Forbes
Named among the '50 most influential people in global finance” by Bloomberg
Markets magazine
Named among the 'Two best Indian CEOs' in an annual poll by Finance Asia
Ranked 10th by Financial Times in the 'Top 50 Women in World Business'
Received the 'Global Leadership Award' from the US-India Business Council
Named 'Most Powerful Woman in Indian Business' by Fortune India
The first woman to be named as the 'Business Leader of the Year' by The
Economic Times
Featured in the 'Hall Of Fame - Most Powerful Women in Indian Business' by
Business Today
2010
40
Mr. N. S. Kannan
Executive Director, ICICI Bank Limited
Mr. N.S. Kannan is Executive Director of ICICI Bank. His responsibilities include
Finance, Treasury, Corporate Legal, Operations, Risk Management, Secretarial,
Corporate Communications, Corporate Branding and Strategic Solutions Group. He also
has the responsibility for day-to-day administration of the Compliance and Internal Audit
functions. Additionally, the President of ICICI Foundation for Inclusive Growth also
reports to Mr. Kannan.
Mr. Kannan has been with the ICICI group for over 25 years. He joined the group as a
project officer. During his tenure at the ICICI group, he also handled Project Finance,
Infrastructure Finance, Structured Finance and Treasury functions. Mr. Kannan was
Executive Director & CFO of ICICI Bank from May 1, 2009 to October 25, 2013. Prior
to this, he was Executive Director of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company. Before
his tenure at ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, Mr. Kannan was the Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of ICICI Bank.
41
Honours graduate in Mechanical Engineering from National Institute of Technology
(formerly Regional Engineering College), Tiruchirappalli.
In 2015, Mr. Kannan was inducted as a member of the CFO Hall of Fame by CFO India
publication for an exemplary career and contribution to the world of finance. In 2013, he
was voted the Best CFO in India in a poll conducted by Finance Asia. In 2012 & 2013, he
was awarded the Best CFO in the Indian banking/financial services sector at the CNBC
TV 18 CFO Awards.
Mr. Vijay Chandok is an Executive Director on the Board of ICICI Bank. Mr. Chandok
joined the ICICI Group in 1993. In his 23 years with the ICICI Group, he has worked in
corporate banking, prior to leading the SME business and the International Banking
Group. He was also the Head of ICICI Bank’s Retail Assets and Rural & Agri Banking
Group and Vice Chairman of ICICI Home Finance Company Limited in 2008-2009. He
also led the integration of the erstwhile Sangli Bank with ICICI Bank. He is on the Board
of ICICI Investment Management Company Limited, ICICI Bank UK PLC and ICICI
Bank Canada. He also chairs the ICICI Investment Management Company which
managed the Emerging India Fund and Private Equity Fund.
Under Mr. Chandok’s leadership, ICICI Bank has won awards for being India’s Best
Bank in SME financing (private sector) in 2008 (by Dun & Bradstreet) and the Asian
42
Banker Award for Excellence in SME Banking in Asia Pacific, Central Asia and Gulf
Region in 2009.
In the International Banking space (IBG), Mr. Chandok has been focusing on
strengthening the Bank’s franchise across overseas locations (16 locations including
subsidiaries in UK & Canada) through leveraging the economic corridors between India
and the rest of the world, initiating and developing banking relationships with MNC
corporates and building a stable and diversified international funding base. During his
tenure, IBG has won several awards including The Best Borrower from India by Finance
Asia for four consecutive years (2012-2015) & Dun & Bradstreet’s Best Bank in Private
sector for International Business Development consecutively for five years (2011-2015).
Ms. Vishakha Mulye is an Executive Director of ICICI Bank. She is presently the head of
Wholesale Banking Group. Ms. Mulye, is a qualified Chartered Accountant, joined the
ICICI Group in 1993, and carries vast experience in the areas of strategy, treasury &
markets, proprietary equity investing and management of long-term equity investments,
structured finance, management of special assets and corporate & project finance. She led
the team that planned and executed the merger of ICICI and ICICI Bank in 2002. From
2002 to 2005, she was responsible for the Bank's structured finance and global markets
businesses, and its financial institutions relationships. From 2005 to 2007, Ms. Mulye
was the Group Chief Financial Officer of ICICI Bank. She was elevated to the Board of
43
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company in 2007. In 2009, she assumed leadership of
ICICI Venture Funds Management Company as its Managing Director & CEO.
She is also a member of the Aspen Institute for 'India Leadership Initiative'. Ms. Mulye
was selected as 'Young Global Leader' for the year 2007 by World Economic Forum. She
was featured in the list of 'Most Powerful Women in Indian Business' by Business Today
in 2011. She received the India CFO Award in 2006 from IMA for 'excellence in finance
in a large corporate' and CA Corporate Leader Award in 2008 from ICAI. In February
2012, she received the GR8! Women awards from ITA for her contribution as "an
Eminent Personality in the field of Banking".
Mr. Anup Bagchi is an Executive Director of ICICI Bank effective February 1, 2017.
Prior to this, Mr. Bagchi was the Managing Director & CEO of ICICI Securities Limited
(I-Sec), where he led capital raising by corporates. Under his leadership, the organisation
won the prestigious Outlook Money - India’s Best e-Brokerage House for seven
consecutive years. It also won the CNBC Awaaz Consumer Award for the Most Preferred
Brand of Financial Advisory Services.
44
Mr. Bagchi joined the ICICI Group in 1992 and has worked in the areas of retail banking,
corporate banking and treasury. He has a management degree from the Indian Institute of
Management, Bangalore and an engineering degree from the Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur.
Mr. Bagchi has been honoured with The Asian Banker Promising Young Banker Award
as well as Business Today has recognised him as one of India's Hottest Young Executives.
45
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Data analysis has been done by arranging the data in a simple table form and percentages
are calculated. The quantitative data has been represented by drawing out the charts
where ever necessary.
Interpretation: To above question, almost 100% of the employees thought that the
Evaluation of Employee’s Performance is needed in a company.
46
(a) Identify areas of improvement
(b) Identifying quality for unit of work
(c) Set performance target
(d) All the above
Table: 5.2 Evaluation of Employee’s Performance rating
s.no Options No. of Responses Percentage
Identify areas of
1 improvement 28 28
Identify areas of training
2 & development 48 48
3 Set performance target 8 8
4 All the above 16 16
Total 100 100
Interpretation:
About the useful of Evaluation of Employee’s Performance, 28% have said
that appraisal system helped them to identify areas of improvement, to 48% it helped
in identifying training & development needs, to 8% it helped in setting performance
targets and to 16% it was helpful in all the above areas. By this we can say that P.A is
helpful in one way or the other for the employees.
5.3. In your experience the outstanding Performance of an employee is due to:
47
(a) Actual Performance (b) Qualification
(c) Experience (d) All the above
Interpretation:
Above 28% of the employees responded that the outstanding Performance
appraisal is due to Actual Performance, 52% of the employees is due to Experience and
20% of the employees is due to all the above.
48
5.4. Do you think that a good workman gets motivated with frequent Evaluation of
Employee’s Performance?
(a) YES (b) NO
Table: 5.4 Motivation for Employee’s Performance with frequent evaluation
No. of
S.no Options Responses Percentage
1 YES 88 88
2 NO 12 12
TOTAL 100 100
% of respondents
12% NO
88% YES
Interpretation:
49
5.5. What are the factors taken into consideration while evaluating the Performance
an individual?
(a) Interpersonal effectiveness (b) Team building skills
(c) Self motivate skills (d) leadership
Interpretation:
About 20% of employees considered interpersonal effectiveness while
Evaluating an individual, 24% of employees considered Teambuilding skills, 22% of
employees considered self motivate skills and 8% of employees considered Leadership.
By this we can say that these are the factors taken into consideration while appraising an
individual.
50
5.6. In your opinion an employee should be:
(a) Effective (b) Moderate (c) Both A & B
Table: 5.6 Opinions on an employee
Interpretation:
About 80% of the employees opinion is that the employee should be
effective and rest 20% of the employees opinion is that the employee should be
Effective and moderate.
51
5.7. Which method you are using for evaluating Performance?
(a) MBO (b) 360 degree appraisal (c) Assessment centre
(d) BARS (e) Any other
Table: 5.7 Method used for evaluating Performance
s.no Options No. of Responses Percentage
1 Mgmt By Objects 48 48
2 360 degree appraisal 24 24
3 Assessment centre 8 8
4 BARS 12 12
5 Any other 8 8
Total 100 100
Interpretation:
About 48% of the employees using Mgmt by objects method for
evaluating Performance, 24% of the employees using 360 degree appraisal, 8% of the
employees using Assessment centre, 12% of the employees using BARS, 8% of the
employees using other method.
52
5.8. Is Appraisal process expensive and time consuming?
(a) YES (b) NO
Table: 5.8 Is Appraisal process expensive and time consuming
s.no Options No. of Responses Percentage
1 YES 64 64
2 NO 36 36
Total 100 100
Interpretation:
About 64% of the respondents said that the performance appraisal is
expensive and time consuming. And 36% of the respondents said that the Performance
appraisal is not expensive and time consuming.
53
5.9. Do you agree with the assessment of your reviewing/reporting officers?
(a) Agree (b) Disagree
Table: 5.9 The assessment of reviewing/reporting officers
s.no Options No. of Responses Percentage
1 Agree 92 92
2 Disagree 8 8
Total 100 100
54
Interpretation:
Majority of 92% of the employees responded that reporting officer was
good at grading the performance. Nearly 8% were disagreeing his duties as per the
guidelines laid down.
Interpretation:
55
About 72% of the employees want to change in frequent between the
appraisals. And 28% of the employees don’t want to change between the appraisals.
5.11. Have you been able to express all difficulties & problems which you have been
facing
Regarding your job & achievement of your performance area?
(a) YES (b) NO
Table: 5.11 Difficulties & problems regarding job & achievement
s.no Options No. of Responses Percentage
1 YES 100 100
2 NO 0 0
Total 100 100
56
Interpretation:
About 100% of the employees are able to express all difficulties &
problems which they have been facing regarding their job.
57
Figure: 5.12 Frequency of conducting Performance appraisal
Interpretation:
About 36% of the employees conducted merit rating/performance
appraisal at the frequency 1year, 52% of the employees conducted at half yearly,12% of
the employees conducted at quarterly.
58
Figure: 5.13 Fairness and adequacy of Reward systems
Interpretation:
About 72% said that the reward system is fair and adequate and 28%
responded that it is not fair.
5.14. Do you have a good relationship with appraiser after Evaluation of Employee’s
Performance?
(a) YES (b) NO
Table: 5.14 Relationships with appraiser after Evaluation of Employee’s
Performance
59
2 NO 4 4
TOTAL 100 100
Interpretation:
60
Figure: 5.15 Evaluation of Employee’s Performance for promotion
Interpretation:
1. In the light of the above discussion the following findings and conclusions are
made.
61
1. It is revealed that the executive are getting feedback on their performance though
which they can review their performance. Sort on the problems and can overcome
the difficulties.
2. The management has a clear understanding about the problem that the workers are
the best with moreover, they are eager to solve the problems of the workers as and
when they arise.
3. The management was giving requisite training to workers in the areas where they
are weak.
4. Workers awareness about the fact that the appraisal is one of the factor for
promotion was cent percent.
5. Evaluation of Employee’s Performance system is considered as a means that aim
at identifying the areas of improvement, identifying areas of training and
development setting performance target for future.
6. The management desire having cordial relations with the work to hold mutual
discussions.
7. The Evaluation of Employee’s Performance system it exists as it exist now, is
properly worked out and appropriately evolved. This revealed from the opinion
given by the majority of the employees.
6.2 SUGGESTIONS
62
It is recommended that employees should be immediately communicated.
The result of the appraisal particularly when they are negative.
It is recommended that the supervisor should try to analyze the strengths and
weaknesses of an employee and advise him on correcting the weakness.
It is commended to counsel the employees appropriately regarding their strength
and weaknesses and assist in developing them to realize their full potential in line
with the company’s goals.
The top management is very much committed in implementing the Evaluation of
Employee’s Performance as it is. The Evaluation of Employee’s Performance
system is consider as an essential tool for bridging gap between the top
management and the executives it thus helps them to develop cordial relations and
mutual understanding.
It is recommended that the employees should be communicated information about
his performance, again his acceptance of it and draw up a plan for future
improvement, if necessary.
It is recommended that the rater must be thoroughly well versed in the philosophy
and of the rating system. Factor sales must be thoroughly defined, analyzed and
discussed.
6.3 CONCLUSION
Workers awareness about the fact that the appraisal is one of the factors for
promotion was cent percent.
63
Performance appraisal system is considered as a means that aim at identifying the
areas of improvement, identifying areas of training and development setting
performance target for future.
The management desire having cordial relations with the work to hold mutual
discussions.
The performance appraisal system it exists as it exists now is properly worked
out and appropriately evolved. This revealed from the opinion given by the
majority of the employees.
Because of lack of communication, employees may not know how they are rated.
The standards by which employees think they are being judged are sometimes
different from those their superiors actually use.
Proper communication of these ratings can help the employers achieve the level
of acceptability and commitment which is required from the employ.
From the survey we can also derive that the appraisee’s expect a post appraisal
interview to be conducted wherein they are given a proper feedback on their
performance and they can also put forward their complaints if any.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
64
1. SUBBA RAO.P : Personnel/Human resource Management.
WEBSITES:
WWW.hrindia.com
www.icici.com
www.indianbanking.com
www.rbi.com
www.performencemanagement.com
QUESTIONNAIRE
PERSONAL DATA
NAME :
65
DESIGNATION :
DEPARTMENT :
EXPERIENCE :
4. Do you think that a good workmen gets motivated with frequent Evaluation of
Employee’s Performance is conducted?
(a) YES (b) NO
5. What are the factors taken into consideration while appraising an individual?
(a) Interpersonal effectiveness (b) Teambuilding skills
(c) Self motivate skills (d) Leadership
6. In your opinion an employee should be :
(a) Effective (b) Ineffective (c) Both A & B
66
8. Is it expensive and time consuming?
(a) YES (b) NO
11. Have you been able to express all difficulties & problems which you have been
facing regarding your job & achievement of your performance area ?
(a) YES (b) NO
13. Are you satisfied with present Evaluation of Employee’s Performance system
(a) YES (b) NO
(SIGNATURE)
67