Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21


The performance appraisal system ideally is an organisation designed programme involving both
the organisation and the personnel to improve the capability of both. The elements of
performance management include: purpose, content, method,appraiser, frequency, and feedback.
The appraisal process involves determining and communicating to an employee how he or she is
performing the job and establishing a plan of improvement. The information provided by
performance appraisal is useful in three major areas: compensation, placement, and training and
development. Appraisal helps to improve performance by identifying the strengths and
weaknesses; it helps to identify those with a potential for greater responsibility; and assists in
deciding on an equitable compensation system. The methods of performance appraisal include
rating scale, critical incident, ranking methods, and management by objectives. Several common
errors have been identified in performance appraisal. Leniency occurs when ratings are grouped
at the positive 7end instead of being spread throughout the performance scale. The central
tendency occurs when all or most employees are ranked in the middle of the rating scale. The
halo effect occurs when a manager allows his or her general impression of an employee to
influence judgment of each separate item in the performance appraisal. A sound appraisal system
involves assessing employee performance on a regular basis. Performance appraisal can be done
by superiors who rate subordinates, subordinates who rate their superiors, and self-appraisal. A
suitable performance appraisal system has to be designed keeping in view the culture and
requirements of an organisation.
There are two types of performance appraisal systems which are normally used in organisations:
 close ended appraisal system,
 open ended appraisal system.
Performance appraisal has always been a hot and challenging issue for the managers across the
world, HR managers as well as the line managers. These caselets discuss some of the common
issues in designing and implementing a performance appraisal system. One of the caselets
discusses not just performance appraisal, but the broader issue of performance management. The
method of appraising using the balanced scorecard approach has been discussed in the last
Performance appraisal is a systematic evaluation of present potential capabilities of personnel
and employees by their superiors, superior’s superior or a professional from outside. It is a
process of estimating or judging the value, excellent qualities or status of a person or thing. It is a
process of collecting, analysing, and evaluating data relative to job behaviour and results of
individuals. The appraisal system is organised on the principle of goals and management by
objectives. Management decisions on performance utilise several integrated inputs: goals and
plans, job evaluation, performance evaluation, and individual history. It connotes a two-
dimensional concept - at one end of the continuum lies the goals set by the authority, and at the
other end, the performance achieved by the individual or any given group.
Performance appraisal can be either formal or informal. Usage of former systems schedule
regular sessions in which to discuss an employee’s performance. Informal appraisals are
unplanned, often just chance statements made in passing about an employee’s performance. Most
organisations use a formal appraisal system. Some organisations use more than one appraisal
system for different types of employees or for different appraisal purposes. Organisations need to
measure employee performance to determine whether acceptable standards of performance are
being maintained. The six primary criteria on which the value of performance may be assessed
are: quality, quantity, timelineness, cost effectiveness, need for supervision, and interpersonal
impact. If appraisals indicate that employees are not performing at acceptable levels, steps can be
taken to simplify jobs, train, and motivate workers, or dismiss them, depending upon the reasons
for poor performance.
The results of appraisal are normally used to:
(1) estimate the overall effectiveness of employees in performing their jobs,
(2) identify strengths and weaknesses in job knowledge and skills,
(3)determine whether a subordinate’s responsibilities can be expanded,
(4) identify future training and development needs,
(5) review progress toward goals and objectives,
(6) determine readiness for promotion, and
(7) motivate and guide growth and development.
Performance appraisal plans are designed to meet the needs of the organisation and the
individual. It is increasingly viewed as central to good human resource management. This is
highlighted in Cumming’s classification of performance appraisal objectives. According to
Cummings and Schwab (1973), the objectives of performance appraisal schemes can be
categorised as either evaluative or developmental. The evaluative purpose have a historical
dimension and are concerned primarily with looking back at how employees have actually
performed over a given time period, compared with required standards of performance.
The developmental performance appraisal is concerned, for example, with the identification of
employees’ training and development needs, and the setting of new targets.
The broad objectives of performance appraisal are:
1. To help the employee to overcome his weaknesses and improve his strengths so as to enable
him to achieve the desired _performance.
2. To generate adequate feedback and guidance from the immediate superior to an employee
working under him.
3. To contribute to the growth and development of an employee through helping him in realistic
goal setting.
4. To provide inputs to system of rewards (comprising salary increments, transfers, promotions,
demotions or _terminations) and salary administration.
5. To help in creating a desirable culture and tradition in the organisation.
6. To help the organisation to identify employees for the purpose of motivating, training and
developing them.
7. To generate significant, relevant, free, and valid _information about employees.
In short, the performance appraisal of an organisation provides systematic judgments to backup
wage and salary administration; suggests needed changes in one’s behaviour, attitudes, skills, or
job knowledge; and uses it as a base for coaching and counseling the individual by his superior.
Appraising employee performance is, thus, useful for compensation, placement, and training and
development purposes.
The appraisal systems do not operate in isolation; they generate data that can contribute to other
HRM systems - for example to succession planning and manpower planning.Some of the
common uses of appraisals include:
 Determining appropriate salary increases and bonuses for workers based on performance
 Determining promotions or transfers depending on the demonstration of employee
strengths and weaknesses.
 Determining training needs and evaluation techniques by identifying areas of
 Promoting effective communication within organisations through the interchange of
dialogue between supervisors and subordinates.
 Motivating employees by showing them where they stand, and establishing a data bank
on appraisal for rendering assistance in personnel decisions.
Organisations use performance appraisals for three purposes: administrative, employee
development, and programme assessment. Programme appraisal commonly serve an
administrative purpose by providing employers with a rationale for making many personnel
decisions, such as decisions relating to pay increases, promotions, demotions, terminations and
transfers. Valid performance appraisal data are essential to demonstrate that decisions are based
on job related performance criteria. An employee’s performance is often evaluated relative to
other employees for administrative purposes, but may be assessed in relation to an absolute
standard of performance. Performance appraisal for employee development purposes provides
feedback on an employee’s performance. The intent of such appraisals is to guide and motivate
employees to improve their performance and potential for advancement in the organisation.
Appraisal data can also be used for employee development purposes in helping to identify
specific training needs of individuals. Programme assessment requires the collection and storage
of performance appraisal data for a number of uses. The records can show how effective
recruiting, selection, and placement have been in supplying a qualified workforce. Performance
measures can be used to validate selection procedures and can also be used as”before” and
“after” measures to determine the success of training and development programmes. In brief, the
various uses of performance appraisal can be classified into two broad categories. One category
concerns the obtaining of evaluation data on employees for decision-making for various
personnel actions such as pay increases, promotions, transfers, discharges, and for selection test
validation. The other main use is for employee development including performance improvement
training, coaching, and counseling.
A meaningful performance appraisal is a two-way process that benefits both the employee and
the manager. For employees, appraisal is the time to find out how the manager thinks they are
performing in the job. For a manager, a formal appraisal interview is a good time to find out how
employees think they are performing on the job. The planning appraisal strategy has to be done:
Before the appraisal
1. Establish key task areas and performance goals.
2. Set performance goals for each key task area.
3. Get the facts.
4. Schedule each appraisal interview well in advance.
During the appraisal
1 Encourage two-way communication.
2. Discuss and agree on performance goals for the future.
3. Think about how you can help the employee to achieve more at work.
4. Record notes of the interview.
5. End the interview on an upbeat note.
After the appraisal
1. Prepare a formal record of the interview.
2. Monitor performance.
George Odiorne has identified four basic approaches to performance appraisal.
Personality-based systems: In such systems the appraisal form consists of a list of personality
traits that presumably are significant in the jobs of the individuals being appraised. Such traits as
initiative, drive, intelligence, ingenuity, creativity, loyalty and trustworthiness appear on most
such lists.
Generalised descriptive systems: Similar to personality-based systems, they differ in the type of
descriptive term used. Often they include qualities or actions of presumably good managers:
“organises, plans, controls, motivates others, delegates, communicates, makes things happen,”
and so on. Such a system, like the personality-based system, might be useful if meticulous care
were taken to define the meaning of each term in respect to actual results.
Behavioural descriptive systems: Such systems feature detailed job analysis and job descriptions,
including specific statements of the actual behaviour required from successful employees.
Results-centred systems: These appraisal systems (sometime called work-centred or job-centred
systems) are directly job related. They require that manager and subordinate sit down at the start
of each work evaluation period and determine the work to be done in all areas of responsibility
and functions, and the specific standards of performance to be used in each area.When
introducing performance appraisal a job description in the form of a questionnaire has to be
preferred. A typical questionnaire addressed to an individual would cover the following points:
 What is your job title?
 To whom are you responsible?
 Who is responsible to you?
 What is the main purpose of your job?
 To achieve that purpose what are your main areas of responsibility?
 What is the size of your job in such terms of output or sales targets, number of items
processed, number of people managed, number of customers? What targets or standards
of performance have been assigned for your job? Are there any other ways in which it
would be possible to measure the effectiveness with which you carry out your job?
 Is there any other information you can provide about your job?


The components that should be used in a performance appraisal system flow directly from the
specific objectives of appraisal. The following components are being used in a number of Indian
1. Key Performance Areas (KPAs) / Key Result Areas (KRAs)
2. Tasks/targets/objectives; attributes/qualities/traits
3. Self appraisal
4. Performance analysis
5. Performance ratings
6. Performance review, discussion or counseling
7. Identification of training / development needs
8. Ratings / assessment by appraiser
9. Assessment / review by reviewing authority
10. Potential appraisal.
There are two types of performance appraisal systems which are normally used in organisations:
 close ended appraisal system,
 open ended appraisal system.
In the close ended appraisal system, commonly used in government organisations and public
enterprises, a confidential report is submitted on the performance of the employee. Only where
an adverse assessment is made against an individual, the concerned individual is informed about
the same. The main shortcoming of this system is that an individual is not informed about his/her
inherent strengths and weaknesses and, therefore, is not given an opportunity to respond to the
assessment made on him/her. The employees are, therefore, in a constant dilemma as to how
their performance is viewed by the management. In the open ended appraisal system, unlike in
the close ended system, the performance of the individual is discussed with him, and he is ranked
in a five or ten point rating scale. The company uses this tool primarily for rewarding a good
performer or for other considerations like promotions. The main weakness of this system is that
all the employees are ranked in a particular scale, and whereas the good performers are
rewarded, there is no concerted effort to motivate the average performers in performing better.
Another weakness of the grading system is that the appraisal may turn out to be more subjective
in nature due to insufficient data maintained on the individual. This system also leads to
unnecessary comparisons made on different individuals performing similar jobs. Performance
appraisal can be a closed affair, where the appraises do not get any chance to know or see how
they have been evaluated; or it can be completely open, where the appraises have the opportunity
of discussing with their superiors during the evaluation exercise.
As in other personnel programmes, performance appraisal forms a line responsibility to be
accomplished with advice and help of the personnel department. Indeed, the appraisal
programme is likely to be an utter failure if it lacks the support of top management; if superiors
are not adequately trained, or have no trust in its value; if the results of appraisal are not
discussed with the subordinates; and if the appraisal is not used to serve the purposes it is meant.
Pigors and Myers suggest several steps to develop and administer the programme effectively.
1. The personnel department may attempt to obtain as much as possible the agreement of line
management in respect of the needs and objective of the programme. A choice has to be made
among different kinds of appraisal methods judiciously.
2. The personnel department has to examine the plans of other organisations as well as the
relevant literature in the field to formulate the most suitable plan for the appraisal programme.
3. Attempts should be made to obtain the co-operation of supervisors in devising the appraisal
form and discuss with them the different factors to be incorporated, weights and points to be
given to each factor, and description or instructions to be indicated on the form.
4. The personnel or industrial relations manager tends to explain the purpose and nature of the
programme to all the superiors and subordinates to be involved and affected by it. Care should be
taken to take into confidence the representatives of the union, if it exists in the company.
5. Attempt is to be made to provide intensive training to all the supervisors with a view to
obtaining unbiased and uniform appraisal of their subordinates.
6. Care may be taken to acquire line and staff co-ordination and mutual checking of appraisals
with a view to achieving intra and inter-departmental consistency and uniformity.
7. There should be an arrangement for periodic discussion of the appraisal by the superior with
each of the subordinates where attempts may be made to stress good points, indicate difficulties,
and encourage improved performance.
Explicitly, in this context, the discussion should be in the form of a progress review and every
opportunity should be given to the subordinate to express himself, if he feels that the appraisal
has been biased and that it should be otherwise.
8. As soon as the appraisal has been duly discussed, attempts may be made to recommend for
salary increases or promotion, if these decisions seem plausible in the light of appraisals.
9. There should be provision for challenge and review of appraisals, if the employees or their
union representatives are dissatisfied with the personnel decisions which the management has
taken on the basis of these appraisals.
These steps, if followed carefully, are likely to help the superiors to evaluate their subordinates


Strauss and Sayles have classified performance appraisal into three groups: traditional
performance rating, newer-rating method, and result-oriented appraisal. A brief description of
each is as follows:
(a) Traditional Performance Rating: Traditional rating involves a completion of a form by the
immediate supervisor of the individual who is being evaluated. In some cases, attempts are made
to accomplish the rating by a committee consisting of the immediate supervisor, the supervisor’s
superior and one or two more officers of the company who are familiar with the rates. Although
ratings by the committee bring several viewpoints together and overcome the superior’s bias, if
any, they are highly time-consuming. The conventional rating scale form incorporates several
factors, such as, job knowledge, judgment, organising ability, dependability, creativity, dealing
with people, delegation, and leadership. The rating is assigned by putting a tick mark
horizontally. Frequently, descriptive phrases are given in the form to guide the rater while
evaluating the rates. This method is very simple to understand and easy to apply. On the basis of
ratings on specific factors, it is possible to identify areas in which the individual requires further
development. The ratings on specific factors can be summated to obtain a composite
performance score. The merit-rating scales are frequently criticised from the standpoints of
clarity in standards, differing perceptions, excessive leniency or strictness, the central tendency,
the halo effect, and the impact of an individual’s job. The basic criticism of the traditional
performance rating is concerned with its emphasis on personality traits instead of job
performance. Such rating is highly subjective in the absence of objective standards.Other
criticisms of traditional performance rating relates to: First, there is a divergence of opinion
among raters as to what is meant by such standards as “unsatisfactory”, “good” and so on.
Second, there may be divergent perceptions and accordingly, different standards of judgments
among the raters. Third, the raters may be susceptible to excessive leniency or strictness error.
Fourth, there is an error of central tendency involving a cluster of ratings near the middle of the
scale. Fifth, there is a chance of the occurrence of a halo effect. Sixth, there is a tendency on the
part of the raters to assign high ratings to individuals holding high paid jobs.
(b) Newer Rating Methods: Because of several inadequacies in the traditional rating scale,
attempts have been made to devise new procedures which are less susceptible to the above
weaknesses. Among these are included rank order, paired comparison, forced distribution forced
choice, critical incident and field review. These methods are discussed below:
(i) The Rank-order Procedure: It is effective where ten or lesser number of individuals are to be
evaluated. According to this procedure, each individual is assigned such ranks as first, second,
third and so on. If the evaluation process involves several traits, the ranking is made separately
for each trait. Although this method is simple to understand and easy to apply, this technique
becomes cumbersome and difficult when a large number of employees are to be evaluated in the
(ii) Paired-comparison System\: Under this, each individual is compared with every other
individual. The appraiser is required to put a tick-mark against the name of the individual whom
he considers better on the trait in question. The final ranking is determined by the number of
times he is judged better than the other. This method becomes complicated when the number of
individuals for evaluation is large.
(iii) The Forced Distribution Procedure: It is a form of comparative evaluation in which an
evaluator rates subordinates according to a specified distribution. Here judgments are made on a
relative basis, i.e., a person is assessed relative to his performance in the group he works. This
procedure can be used for numerous traits if required by evaluating the individuals separately on
each trait. The forced distribution method is primarily used to eliminate rating errors such as
leniency and central tendency.
(iv) The Forced Choice Technique: It forces the rater to select from a series of several statements
or traits, the one which best fits the individual and one which least fits, and each of these
statements is assigned a score. Since the appraiser does not know the score value of statements,
this method prevents the rater from deliberately checking only the most favourable trait.
Moreover, the appraiser is unable to introduce personal bias into the evaluation process because
he does not know which of the statements is indicative of effective performance. This enhances
the overall objectivity of this procedure. However, it is a costly technique and also difficult for
many raters to understand.
(v) The Critical Incident Method: This technique of performance appraisal was developed by
Flanagan and Burns. Under this procedure, attempts are made to devise for each job a list of
critical job requirements. Superiors are trained to be on the lookout for critical incidents on the
part of the subordinates in accomplishing the job requirements. The superiors enlist the incidents
as they happen and in the process, tend to build up a record of each subordinate with debit on the
minus side and credit on the plus side. The merit of this procedure is that all evaluations are
based on objective evidence instead of subjective rating.
(vii) The Field Review: It is an appraisal by someone outside the employee’s own department,
usually someone from the corporate office or from the employee’s own human resource
department. The field review process involves review of employee records, and interviews with
the employee, and sometimes with the employee’s superior. Field review as an appraisal method
is used primarily in making promotion decisions at the managerial level. Field reviews are also
useful when comparable information is needed from employees in the different units or
(c) Results-Oriented Appraisal: The results-oriented appraisals are based on the concrete
performance targets which are usually established by superior and subordinates jointly. This
procedure has been known as Management by Objectives (MBO). MBO: The definition of
MBO, as expressed by its foremost proponent, Dr. George S. Odiorne, is: “Management by
objectives is a process whereby the superior and subordinate managers of an organisation jointly
identify its common goals, define each individual’s major areas of responsibility in terms of the
results expected of him, and use these measures as guides for operating the unit and assessing the
contribution of each of its members.” Much of the initial impetus for MBO was provided by eter
Drucker (1954) and by Douglas McGregor (1960). Drucker first described management by
objectives in 1954 in the Practice of Management. Drucker pointed the importance of managers
having clear objectives that support the purposes of those in higher positions in the organisation.
McGregor argues that by establishing performance goals for employees after reaching agreement
with superiors, the problems of appraisal of performance are minimised. MBO in essence
involves the setting out clearly defined goals of an employee in agreement with his superior.
Carroll and Tosi (1973), in an extensive account of MBO, note its following characteristics:
1. The establishment of organisational goals.
2. The setting of individual objectives in relation to organisational goals.
3. A periodic review of performance as it relates to organisational goals.
4. Effective goal-setting and planning by top management.
5. Organizational commitment.
6. Mutual goal-setting.
7. Frequent individual performance reviews.
8. Some freedom in developing means of achieving objectives.
MBO is, thus, a method of mutual goal-setting, measuring progress towards the goals, taking
action to assure goal attainment, feedback, and participation. It is a result oriented philosophy,
enabling an employee to measure progress toward a goal which Performance and Potential
Appraisal the employee often has helped to set. In the goal-setting phase of MBO, a superior
and subordinate discuss job performance problems and a goal is agreed upon. Along with mutual
goal-setting, a major component of MBO is the performance review session between the superior
and subordinate, which takes place regularly to evaluate progress towards specified goals. The
key features of management by objectives are as under:
1. Superior and subordinate get together and jointly agree upon the list the principal duties and
areas of responsibility of _the individual’s job.
2. The subordinate sets his own short-term performance goals or targets in cooperation with his
3. They agree upon criteria for measuring and evaluating performance.
4. From time to time, as decided upon, the superior and subordinate get
together to evaluate progress towards the agreed-upon goals. At those meetings, new or modified
goals _are set for the ensuing period.
5. The superior plays a supportive role. He tries, on a day-to-day basis, to help the subordinate
achieve the agreed upon _goals. He counsels and coaches.
6. In the appraisal process, the superior plays less of the _role of a judge and more of the role of
one who helps the _subordinate attain the organization goals or targets.
7. The process focuses upon results accomplished and not upon personal traits.
There are four main steps in MBO:
1. Define the job. Review, with the subordinates, his or her key responsibilities and duties.
2. Define expected results (set objectives). Here specify in measurable terms what the person is
expected to achieve.
3. Measure the results. Compare actual goals achieved with expected results.
4. Provide feedback, appraise. Hold periodic performance review meetings with subordinates to
discuss and evaluate the _latter’s progress in achieving expected results.
MBO as a mutual goal setting exercise is most appropriate for technical, professional,
supervisory, and executive personnel. In these positions, there is generally enough latitude and
room for discretion to make it possible for the person to participate in setting his work goals,
tackle new projects, and discover new ways to solve problems. This method is generally not
applied for lower categories of workers because their jobs are usually too restricted in scope.
There is little discretionary opportunity for them to shape their jobs.MBO may be viewed as a
system of management rather than an appraisal method. A successful installation of MBO
requires written mission statements that are prepared at the highest levels of top management.
Mission statements provide the coherence in which top-down and bottom-up goal setting appear
sensible and compatible. MBO can be applied successfully to an organization that has sufficient
autonomy, personnel, budget allocation, and policy integrity. Managers are expected to perform
so that goals are attained by the organisation. Too often MBO is installed top-down in a
dictatorial manner with a little or no accompanying training. If properly implemented, it serves
as a powerful and useful tool for the success of managerial performance. MBO is a tool that is
inextricably connected with team building so that the work commitment of team members can be
increased and their desire to excel in performance can be inspired. It is important to have
effective team work among a group of managers or a group of subordinates. The group of
employees or subordinates must be looked upon as a team that needs to be brought together.
Goals should be set by manager-subordinate pairs, and also by teams. The basic superior
subordinate relationship in an organization is in no way undermined in this concept of team goal
setting. Lines of responsibility, authority, and accountability remain clear. MBO has many
benefits, since it:
1. Provides a way for measuring objectively the performance of subordinates.
2. Co-ordinates individual performance with company goals.
3. Clarifies the job to be done and defines expectations of job accomplishment.
4. Improves superior-subordinate relationships through a dialogue that takes place regularly.
5. Fosters increased competence, personal growth, and opportunity for career development
6. Aids in an effective overall planning system.
7. Supplies a basis for more equitable salary determination, especially incentive bonuses.
8. Develops factual data for promotion criteria.
9. Stimulates self-motivation, self-discipline and self-control.
10. Serves as a device for integration of many management functions.
MBO has certain potential problems, such as:
1. It often lacks the support and commitment of top management.
2. Its objectives are often difficult to establish.
3. Its implementation can create excessive paperwork if it is not closely monitored.
4. It concentrates too much on the short run at the expense of long-range planning.
5. It may lead to excessive time consuming.
Traditionally, in most performance evaluations a supervisor evaluates the performance of
subordinate. Recently, a new approach has been enunciated by the western management gurus,
which is known as 360 degree appraisal - a performance management in which people receive
performance feedback from those on all sides of them in the organization - their boss, their
colleagues and peers, and their own subordinates, and internal and external customers. The list
can grow to include vendors and consultants, human resource professionals, suppliers and
business associates, even friends and spouses. The 360 degree feedback refers to the practice of
using multiple raters often including self-ratings in the assessment of individuals. Thus, the
feedback comes from all around. It is also a move towards participation and openness. Many
American companies are now using this 360 degree feedback. Companies that practice 360
degree appraisals include Motorola, Semco Brazil, British Petroleum, British Airways, Central
Televisions, and so on. Barring a few multinational companies, in India this system of appraisal
is uncommon.
This form of performance evaluation can be very beneficial to managers because it typically
gives them a much wider range of performance-related feedback than a traditional evaluation.
That is, rather than focusing narrowly on objective performance, such as sales increase or
productivity gains, 360 degree often focuses on such things as interpersonal relations and style.
Of course, to benefit from 360 degree feedback, a manager must have thick skin. The manager is
likely to hear some personal comments on sensitive topics, which may be threatening. Thus, a
360 degree feedback system must be carefully managed so that its focus remains on constructive
rather than destructive criticism.
Balance Score Card: The Balance Score Card (BSC) creates a template for measurement of
organizational performance as well as individual performance. It is a measurement based
management system, which enables organizations to clarify vision and strategy before initiating
action. It is also a monitoring system that integrates all employees at all levels in all departments
towards a common goal. BSC translates strategy into performance measures and targets, thus
making it operational and highly effective. It helps cascade corporate level measures to lower
level so that the employees can see what they must do well to improve organizational
Effectiveness and helps focus the entire organization on what must be done to create
breakthrough performance. BSC was introduced in 1992 by Dr. Robert Kaplan and David
Norton and has been successfully adopted by numerous companies worldwide. Assessment
Centre Experts from various departments are brought together to evaluate individuals or groups
specially their potentials for promotions.


The quality of an appraiser is much more crucial than the appraisal methods. It is desirable to
make the immediate superior a party to the appraisal programme. The assessment can be
accomplished by an individual or by a combination of the immediate superior, other managers
acquainted with the assessor’s work, a higher level manager, a personnel officer, the assesse
himself, and the assessor’s subordinates. Training of appraisers has been largely stressed as a
measure to improve performance appraisals. Appraisers can be trained with a view to improving
their ability to evaluate subordinates and discuss evaluations with them effectively.
The following questions can provide an assessment of performance appraisal system:
1. What purposes does the organisation want its performance appraisal system to serve?
2. Do the appraisal forms really get the information to serve the purposes?
3. Are the appraisal forms designed to minimize errors and ensure consistency?
4. Do the processes of the appraisal serve the purpose of effective communication between the
appraiser and the _appraise?
5. Are supervisors rewarded for correctly evaluating and developing their employees?
6. Are the evaluation and developmental components separated?
7. Are superiors relatively free from task interference in doing performance appraisal?
8. Are the appraisals being implemented correctly?
The following questions serve as guidelines for assessing the end-product of performance
1. Did the appraisal session motivate the subordinate?
2. Did the appraisal build a better relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate?
3. Did the subordinate come out with a clear idea of where he or she stands?
4. Did the superior arrive at a fairer assessment of the subordinate?
5. Did the superior learn something new about the subordinate?
6. Did the subordinate learn something new about the superior and pressures he or she faces?
7. Does the subordinate have a clear idea of what corrective actions to be taken to improve
his/her own performance?


Traditionally appraisals are carried out by the supervisors of the employees. Some companies do
follow self appraisal and compare the same with the traditional appraisal of the supervisors. A
new approach has been recently enunciated by the western management gurus, which is known
as 360 degree appraisal whereby appraisals are required to be carried out not only by the
supervisors, but also by those supervised (subordinates) and peers. This approach also needs a re-
look in the context of leadership concepts being practiced universally. If one requires to be
appraised on how well he performs the leadership role, the appraisal should originate from the
followers (bottom to top approach) and not from their supervisors alone.
While the supervisors can appraise, on the performance standards, goals, targets, achievements,
the leadership attributes need to be appraised only by those being supervised. This argument is
quite valid for higher level executives including CEOs. Therefore, all the three approaches, top-
bottom, bottom-top and peer level appraisal will be very relevant. Perhaps, appropriate
weightage is required to be assigned for appraisals being carried out in the 360 degree system,
which is yet to take off seriously in many organisations.
It is quite disappointing to note that appraisals are not being carried out with the due importance
and seriousness they deserve though the systems provide scope for periodic and timely
appraisals. Normally appraisals are being carried out once a year or at the most twice a year as
per the existing practice. Many organisations do follow monthly and quarterly appraisals for
management trainees till they are confirmed, and follow the by-annual or annual appraisal
system thereafter.Appraisal is a continuous process, to be scientifically carried out day in day
out, if one has to seriously carry out appraisals.


1. Identifying job responsibilities and duties and performance dimensions,
standards and goals.
2. Prioritizing and weighing performance dimensions and performance goals.
3. Determining appropriate methods for appraising performance.
4. Developing suitable appraisal instruments and scoring devices.
5. Establishing procedures that enhance fair and just appraisals of all
6. Providing performance feedback to all employees.
7. Relating observed and identified performance to the rewards provided by
8. Designing, monitoring and auditing processes to ensure proper operation of
the system and to identify areas of weakness.
9. Granting employees opportunities for appeal whenever and wherever such
action is appropriate.
10. Training of employees in all phases of the appraisal system.
The basic issues addressed by performance appraisal are:
 What to appraise?
 How to appraise fairly and objectively?
 How to communicate the appraisal and turn the total process into a motivator?
 How the performance appraisal results can be put to good use?
 How to implement the performance appraisal system smoothly?

Meaning of Research:

“Research means a search for knowledge”. Sometimes, it may refer to scientific and
systematic search pertinent information on a specific topic. Intact researcher is an art of scientific
investigation. Redman and Moray define researcher as a “systematic efforts to gain new
knowledge”. Some consider researcher is a movement from the known to the unknown. It is
actually a voyage of discovery. According to Clifford woody, researcher compromise,” define
and redefining problem, formulating hypothesis or suggested solution; collecting ,organizing and
evaluating data; making deduction and reaching conclusion; and at last carefully testing the
conclusion to determine whether they fit the formulating hypothesis”.

Researcher is thus an original contribution to the existing stock of knowledge making

for its advancement. It is the pursuit of truth with the help of study, observation, comparison and
experiment. In short, the study of knowledge through objective and systematic method consisting
of enunciating the problem, formulating the hypothesis collecting the facts or data, analyzing the
facts and researching certain conclusion either in the form of solution towards the concerned
problem or in certain generalist for some theoretical formulations.


The area, which is taken for study, is Ashok Leyland, Ennore, Chennai.



Employees 50

The sample size taken for the project is 50.


Convenience sampling has been used to collect the data from the respondents. Convenience
sampling technique is followed.Convenience sampling as the name implies is based on the
convenience of the researcher who is to select the sample. This type of sampling is also called
accidental sampling as the respondents in the sampling are included in it merely on account of
that being available on the spot where the survey is in process.

Thus the researcher may stand at a certain prominent point and interview all those or
selected people who pass through that place.

Period of study

The study was conducted for 1 month at Ashok Leyland, and data was collected from
(16.06.2009 to 15.07.2009).


The statistical tools used for analysis are:

 Percentage method
 Weighted average


In this method frequency of the various criteria factors are tabulated and the
percentage for each value with respect to the total is found out. They are presented pictorially
by way of graphs in order to have better understanding.

The formula is = No of Respondents

Total Respondent

Under this method the relative importance of the different items is not the same. The
term weights stands for relative importance of the different items. The formula for calculating
the weighted arithmetic mean is

X = ∑WF



X = weighted arithmetic mean

F = Frequency or no of respondents


1.Time is important limitation due to the time constraints only few employees is taken for the

2. The study is limited to the employees deployed in ashok leyland.

3. The study process often overlooked by management so redtapism involvement could

manipulated desired result.
Human resource management – Aswathappa

Human resource management – V. S. Rao

Human resource management – Gary dessler

Personnel management - C.B.mamoria

Evaluating management training and development - B.R.virmani premila seth
Strategic human resource management – Srinivas.R.Kandula