TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS DESCRIPTION

Acknowledgement Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures INTRODUCTION o About the IT Industry o About HCL Infosystems o About Salesforce Management STUDY DESIGN o Objectives of the study o Importance of the study o Limitations o Sources of data ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEXURE

PAGE NO

3 4 5 6

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. BPO INDUSTRY IN INDIA 1.1.1. Definition Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) is the delegation of one or more IT-

intensive business processes to an external provider that in turn owns, administers and manages the selected process based on defined and measurable performance criteria. Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) is one of the fastest growing segments of the Information Technology Enabled Services (ITES) industry. 1.1.2. Different Types of Services Being Offered by BPO's 1. Customer Support Services Customer service offerings create a virtual customer service center to manage customer concerns and queries through multiple channels including voice, e-mail and chat on a 24/7 and 365 days basis. 2. Technical Support Services Technical support offerings include round-the-clock technical support and problem resolution for OEM customers and computer hardware, software, peripherals and Internet infrastructure manufacturing companies. These include installation and product support, up & running support, troubleshooting and Usage support. 3. Telemarketing Services

Telesales and telemarketing outsourcing services target interaction with potential customers for 'prospecting' like either for generating interest in products and services, or to up-sell / promote and cross sell to an existing customer base or to complete the sales process online. 4. Employee IT Help-desk Services Employee IT help-desk services provide technical problem resolution and support for corporate employees. 5. Insurance Processing Insurance processing services provide specialized solutions to the insurance sector and support critical business processes applicable to the industry right from new business acquisition to policy maintenance to claims processing. 6. Data Entry Services / Data Processing Services 7. Data Conversion Services 8. Scanning, OCR with Editing & Indexing Services 9. Book Keeping and Accounting Services 10. Form Processing Services 1.1.3. Business Process Outsourcing: The Top Rankers WNS has emerged as the top BPO in India, pushing Wipro BPO to the second position, according to a survey done by NASSCOM. The basis of ranking is the revenues generated by the BPO companies in 2003-04, as per US GAAP. A list of top five BPO companies in India is given below. 1. WNS Group 2. Wipro BPO 3. Daksh e-Services 4. Convergys 5. HCL Technologies

The parameters for the survey was: Employee Size (Operation level executives), Percentage of last salary hike, Cost to company, Overall Satisfaction Score, Composite Satisfaction, Company Culture, Job Content/ Growth, Training, Salary and Compensation, Appraisal System, People, Preferred Company: (Percentage of respondents of a company who named their own company as the preferred one), Dream Company: (Percentage of respondents in the total sample who preferred a particular company). Note: HCL BPO stands fifth in this ranking.

1.2. ABOUT HCL BPO 1.2.1. HCL BPO - The Right Stuff HCL BPO currently consists of two operational entities under a single management - HCL Technologies BPO Services, India and Northern Ireland. Whilst the India operation is a wholly owned subsidiary of HCL Technologies Ltd., the operation in Northern Ireland is a joint venture with British Telecom (BT). HCL BPO represents HCL Technologies most significant strategic business extension and investment to date. The focus on and commitment to BPO is based on the following assets and attributes of the parent organization, HCL Technologies: Global Client Base & Relationships Global Presence & Reach Related Technology Domain Expertise Relevant Industry Practices Funding & Scalability

1.2.2. HCL BPO: The Management Team Shiv Nadar Chairman N. Ranjit - Chief Operating Officer Raj Sirohi - Global Head, Sales and Marketing

Sumit Bhattacharya - Executive Vice President Marketing & Strategic Planning Kevin Houston - Center Head Belfast Eileen Mc Aleese - Operations Manager Belfast Ron Ruys - Campaign Manager Belfast S. K. Pillai - Vice President Quality A.P. Rao- Vice President - Human Resources Vijay Reddy - Chief Technology Officer 1.2.3. Awards & Certifications India Operations

ISO 9001:2000 Purdue Benchmark (Ranked Second In Global Peer Group)

COPC Certification awarded (Noida) BS 7799 Certification awarded

1.2.4. Delivery Center Network

N1: N2: N3: N4: A1: B1: C1: C2: M1: 1.3. PROCESS PROFILE

Noida, India Noida, India Noida, India Noida, India Belfast, UK HCLT NI- A 90:10 JV With British Telecom Bangalore, India Chennai, India Chennai, India Malaysia

650 Seats 700 Seats 700 Seats 1000 Seats 1000 seats 350 Seats 750 Seats 1000 Seats 200 Seats

The Phoenix process is a customer support service and is one of the leading DSL provider and one of the top five ISPs in the United States. They do have a global network that operates in 25 states and 22 countries outside the United States. At HCL BPO, Project Phoenix is a 1000 seat technical call center providing technical support to its clients. Presently, it is 678 strong. It is an international inbound technical call center. The CSRs in inbound call centers will always respond to the clients, customers or prospects in a timely, polite and professional manner.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3

OBJECTIVES

3.1. NEED FOR THE STUDY HCL BPO is a leading third party BPO and is ranked third in India .It is highly competitive and has high employee mobility. Retaining the employees is the major strategic issue for BPO companies. At present HCL BPO has a retention policy, which is primarily guided, by having a written bond to prevent employees from leaving the organization. But HCL BPO feels that this will have an adverse impact on organization commitment, motivation and morale of the company and there is likelihood that the employees will leave once the bond expires. To address this issue HCL BPO has given this project. 3.2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The scope of project includes the following activities under its purview: 1. Analyzing the current status of employee turnover 2. Understanding the employees perception regarding the retention policy 3.3. OBJECTIVE

 A study on present effectiveness of Performance appraisal system A Study on the effectiveness of performance appraisal system in Technologies BPO Services Limited, Center 1, Chennai. 3.4. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE 3.5. LIMITATION OF THE STUDY The findings and suggestions cannot be generalized for all the processes in HCL BPO for the below reason: HCL

As the study is limited only to the agents of the production floor at HCL Technologies BPO Services Limited, Center 2, Chennai, the findings cannot be extrapolated to other areas.

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The research problem includes 4.2. RESEARCH DESIGN The research design is the blue print for fulfilling objectives and answering questions of specific research problem. This study is descriptive in nature. It has been undertaken to learn and describe the characteristics of group of employees, in an attempt to find the causes and solution for the attrition problem. 4.3. RESEARCH PLAN 1. The first phase of the study includes finding the current attrition rate 2. The second phase of the study includes formulating a questionnaire to identify the characteristics of group of employees and the possible reasons leading to attrition

3. The third phase of the study includes data analysis using SPSS to arrive at the findings 4. The fourth phase of the study includes making suggestions to reduce attrition in the process 5. The last phase includes the documentation of the entire study 4.4. SAMPLING DESIGN 4.4.1. Population The employees of HCL BPO form the population for this study. Population size: 750(approximately)

4.4.2. Sampling Frame

Sampling Frame is the subset of defined target population, from which the sample can be selected realistically for the research. The agents of the production floor form the sampling frame, from which actual sample is selected. Sampling Frame Size: 672 4.4.3. Sampling Techniques The sampling design used for this study is systematic random sampling. The systematic sampling involves drawing every nth element in the population starting with a randomly chosen number from 1 to n. The procedure has been exemplified below: Population size Sample size required : n = 672 / 250 = 2.68 3 Therefore every third member is sampled starting from a random number from 1 to 3. 4.4.4. Sample Size Sample Size: 250 The sample size has been determined using the formula n = (z x s / e) 2 n = Sample size z = Standard normal variate (equal to 1.96 for 95 % confidence interval) s = Standard normal deviation of population e = Tolerance limit (8 %) Here, since standard deviation of population is not known, we calculate it from range s = (max min) / 6 s = (4 1) / 6 s = 0.5 Applying the formula the sample size has been determined as 250 4.5. DATA COLLECTION METHODS : 250 672

(i) Secondary Data (ii) Primary Data 4.5.1. Secondary Data The first phase of the study includes finding the existing attrition rate from the monthly resource reports of the entire process. The second phase of the study includes collecting inputs from the entire team on various factors affecting attrition using a questionnaire.

4.5.2. Primary Data Primary data was collected using questionnaire as the second phase of the study. A questionnaire is a preformulated written set of questions to which the respondents record their answers, usually within rather closely defined alternatives. In this study, a questionnaire has been prepared with a view to capture the present working conditions and the possible reasons for attrition. A copy of the questionnaire has been attached in the appendix. 4.6. DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS 4.6.1. Statistical Tools The data analysis tools that have been used in this study are: 4.6.1.1. Quantitative Tools 1. 2. 3. 4. Frequency Distribution Chi-Square test Rank Correlation test Multiple Response

4.6.1.2. Qualitative Tools 1. Content Analysis

CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

DATA ANALYSIS FROM SECONDARY DATA 5.1.1. Attrition Cost An attempt has been made to calculate the Annual employee turnover cost by projecting the number of people who quit the job in past 4 months. 5.1.1.1. Steps in calculating the attrition cost A: Categorize the employees into various teams based on their experience and educational qualification B: Find the gross salary corresponding to team category C: Find out the number of employees, who quit this job in past 4 months D: Find the time duration taken by an employee to become productive (in months)

E: Calculate the per person turnover cost Per Person turnover cost = D / 12 * B * 50% F: Find the annual turnover cost for this job for a particular team category Annual turnover cost = E * C * 3 Note: Assumes 50% productivity throughout the learning period.

5.1.1.2. Sample Calculation For Team Category 1 Per person turnover cost = 2 X 135384 X .5 = Rs 11281.999 ~ Rs 11282 12 Annual turnover cost for this job = 11282 X 171 X 3 = Rs 5787665.97 ~ Rs 5787666 The table shown in the next page represents the annual turnover cost for each of the team category.

Table 5.1: Attrition Cost

Time taken for Gross salary an employee to become productive 135384 2 11282 5787666.00 Per person Annual turnover turnover cost cost for this job

Team Category

Number of people Criteria who quit in past 4 months Degree with

no experience Degree + 1

171

years experience/M BA Degree + 2

15

154488

12874

579330.00

years experience/M BA + 1 Degree + 3

174057

14504.75

130542.75

years experience/M BA + 2 Degree + 4 years or

195426

16285.5

48856.50

greater experience/M BA + 3 Total

219537

18294.75

219537.00

194

73241

6765932.25

Note: 1. The Annual Turnover Cost does not include the a. Hiring Cost b. Separation Cost c. Training Cost

2. The Attrition cost calculated above is applicable only for Customer support executives. 3. Assume 50% Productivity 5.2 Attrition Measures of Employee Turnover Table 5.2: Attrition Rate
Month July August September October November December January February March April (Till 20th) Median Attrition (%) 7.44 18.8 6.46 5.2 2.61 3.47 3.73 6.27 4.8 5.1 5 Target 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Graph 5.2: Graphical representation of Attrition analysis

Attrition Analysis
Attrition (%) Target 20 15 10 5 0 September November December February April (Till 20th) July January August October March

Inference: 1. The attrition has been highest (18.8 %) during the month of August and fell steeply during the month of September (6.46 %) 2. The attrition is fluctuating around the median value of 5%. Currently the attrition rate is 5 % and the trend is slightly increasing 5.3. Job Status Analysis

Table 5.3: Attrition analysis based on job status

Particulars Designation Based CSE Training Nesting Others TOTAL Monthly Count March April 32 40 0 0 11 2 3 3 46 45

Jan 33 5 0 2 40

Feb 29 24 4 6 63

Consolidated 134 29 17 14 194

Graph 5.3: Attrition analysis based on job status

Designation based Attrition Analysis 9% 15% 7% CSE Training Nesting Others

69%

Inference: 1. 69% of the attrition is attributed to CSE (customer support executive) 2. 15% of the attrition is attributed to Training

5.4 Educational Qualification Table 5.4: Attrition analysis based on educational qualification
Particulars Educational Qualification Arts Science Engineering and MCA Commerce Total Monthly Count March April 1 3 8 14 36 24 1 4 46 45

Jan 3 11 21 5 40

Feb 5 14 40 4 63

Consolidated 12 47 121 14 194

Graph 5.4: Attrition analysis based on educational qualification

Educational Qualification Based Attrition Analysis

7%

6% 24%

Arts Science Engineering&MCA Commerce

63%

Inference: 1. 63% of the employees who left are Engineering and MCA graduates 2. 24% of the employees who left had Science background

5.5 Reasons For Attrition Table 5.5: Reason based attrition analysis

Particulars Reasons Involuntary Absconding Better prospects Higher studies Personal (marriage, health, relocation etc.) Total Jan 2 23 7 2 6 40 Feb 23 26 10 0 4 63

Monthly - Count March 13 17 9 1 6 46 April Consolidated 5 43 25 91 4 30 2 5 9 25 45 194

Graph 5.5: Graphical representation of analysis - Reason based attrition analysis

Reason Based Attrition Analysis

Involuntary Absconding

3% 15%

13%

22%

Better prospects Higher studies

47%

Personal (marriage, health, relocation etc.)

Inference: 1. 47% of the people absconded from the job 2. 15 % left the job for better career opportunities elsewhere 5.6 Tenure Based Attrition Analysis Table 5.6: Tenure based attrition analysis
Particulars Monthly - Count

Tenure
0-3 months 3-6 months 6-12 months >12 months Total

Jan 7 21 10 2 40

Feb 5 41 14 3 63

March 2 26 13 5 46

April 0 12 30 3 45

Consolidated 14 100 67 13 194

Graph 5.6: Tenure based attrition analysis

Tenure Based Attrition Analysis

7% 35%

7% 0-3 months 3-6 months 6-12 months 51% >12 months

Inference: 1. 7 % of the turnover occurs in the period greater than 12 months 2. 35 % of the turnover occurs in the period between 6 12 months 3. 51 % of the turnover occurs in the period between 3 6 months 4. 7 % of the turnover occurs in the period between 0 3 months 5.7 Gender Based Attrition Analysis Table 5.7: Gender based attrition analysis
Particulars Gender Male Female Monthly - Count March April 22 24 8 21

Jan 28 12

Feb 40 23

Consolidated 114 64

Graph 5.7: Gender based attrition analysis

Gender Based Attrition Analysis

36%

Male Female
64%

Inference: 1. 64% of the people who quit the job were male 2. 36% of the people who quit the job were female

5.8 Correlation Analysis Table 5.8.1: Reasons for joining HCL BPO Sig. value 0.001 Correlation coeffient -.202

S.No. 1

Variables Unemployed and needed a job Fringe benefits

Comment Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is moderate. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

Unemployed and needed a job Reputation as a good place to work

0.000

-.385

Unemployed and needed a job career advancement

0.000

-.429

Unemployed and needed a job Advertisement

0.001

-.202

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

Unemployed and needed a job Salary advancement

0.000

-.262

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Comment

Unemployed and needed a job temporary / stop gap option

0.003

-.184

Referred by friend career advancement

0.000

-.307

Referred by friend Advertisement

0.000

-.251

Referred by friend salary advancement

0.000

-.305

S.No. 10

Variables Career advancement temporary / stop gap option

Sig. value 0.000

Correlation coeffient -.308

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

11

Fringe benefits Salary advancement

0.000

-.434

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

12

Reputation as a good place to work unemployed and needed a job Reputation as a good place to work Career advancement

0.000

-.385

13

0.000

.230

14

Reputation as a good place to work Advertisement

0.000

-.277

S.No. 15

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient -292

Comment Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

Reputation as a 0.000 good place to work temporary / stop gap option

16

Career advancement Reputation as a good place to work

0.000

.230

17

Career advancement Salary advancement

0.003

.190

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

18

Advertisement Reputation as a good place to work

0.000

-.277

19

Temporary / stop gap option Referred by a friend

0.000

-.308

Table 5.8.2: Factors, which makes the employees to feel that their company is best at? S.No. 1 Sig. value 0.007 Correlation coeffient -.170

Variables Work environment Relationship with peers

Comment Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak

Work environment Brand image

0.000

-.243

Work environment Compensation

0.000

-.269

Relationship with TL Brand image

0.000

-.389

Relationship 0.001 with TL Company policy

-.212

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

Relationship with TL compensation

0.000

-.338

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak

Relationship with peers Relationship with TL

0.000

.279

Relationship with peers Brand image

0.022

-.145

Relationship 0.000 with peers Company policy

-.306

10

Career growth 0.000 Company policy

-.274

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

11

Transportation 0.041 Brand image

-.129

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak

12

Brand image work environment

0.000

-.243

13

Brand image Relationship with TL

0.000

-.389

14

Brand image Relationship with peers

0.022

-.145

15

Brand image transportation

0.041

-.129

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

16

0.000 Brand image Company policy

-.269

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak

17

Brand image Infrastructure

0.005

.176

18

Brand image Compensation

0.009

.166

19

Company policy 0.000 Career growth

-.274

20

Company policy 0.000 Brand image

-.269

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

21

Company policy 0.000 Infrastructure

.267

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak

22

Company policy 0.022 Compensation

-.144

23

Infrastructure Work environment

0.000

-.279

24

Infrastructure Relationship with TL

0.000

-.304

25

Infrastructure Brand image

0.005

.176

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

26

Infrastructure 0.000 Company policy

.267

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is moderate. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak

27

Compensation Work environment

0.000

-.269

28

Compensation Relationship with TL

0.000

-.338

29

Compensation Transportation

0.000

-.400

30

Compensation Brand image

0.009

.166

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

31

Compensation 0.022 Company policy

-.144

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak

32

Compensation Infrastructure

0.002

.194

5.8.3: Factors, which the company could do to retain employees?

S.No. 1

Variables Increase group cohesiveness Provide advancement opportunities

Sig. value 0.009

Correlation coeffient -.169

Comment Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

Increase group cohesiveness Increase career development opportunities

0.015

-.153

Increase group cohesiveness Provide challenging job

0.009

-.165

Increase group cohesiveness Good working environment

0.000

-.325

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

Increase group cohesiveness Management style of your superiors

0.011

-.161

S.No. 6

Variables Provide

Sig. value 0.049

Correlation coeffient -.124

Comment Correlation is significant

advancement opportunities Defi ned benefit plan

at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

Provide advancement opportunities Better compensation Provide advancement opportunities Provide challenging job Provide advancement opportunities Good working environment

0.000

-.329

0.001

-.217

0.001

-.204

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

10

Provide advancement opportunities Management style of your superiors.

.001

-.202

11

Increase career development opportunities Increase group cohesiveness

0.015

-.153

S.No. 12

Variables Increase career development

Sig. value 0.008

Correlation coeffient .168

Comment Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit

13

opportunities Provide advancement opportunities Increase career development opportunities Defined benefit plan Increase career development opportunities Good working environment Increase career development opportunities Management style of your superiors.

0.028

-.139

14

0.000

-.271

15

0.000

-.244

The variables are positively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

16

Defined benefit plan Provide advancement opportunities

0.049

-.124

17

Defined benefit plan Increase career development opportunities

0.028

-.139

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

18

Defined benefit plan Provide challenging job

0.000

-.277

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

19

Defined benefit plan Good working environment

0.000

-.287

20

Defined benefit plans Management style of your superiors.

0.000

-.256

21

Better compensation Provide advancement opportunities

0.000

-.329

22

Better compensation Management style of your superiors

0.001

-.213

23

Provide challenging job Increase group cohesiveness

0.009

-.165

S.No.

Variables

Sig. value

Correlation coeffient

Comment

24

Provide challenging job provide advancement opportunities Provide challenging job defined benefit plan

0.001

-.217

Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

25

0.000

-.227

26

Good working environment Increase group cohesiveness

0.000

-.325

27

Good working environment Provide advancement opportunities Good working environment Increase career development opportunities Good working environment Defined benefit plan

0.001

-.204

28

0.000

-.271

29

0.000

-.287

S.No. 30

Variables Good working environment Management style of your superiors

Sig. value 0.005

Correlation coeffient .177

Comment Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are positively correlated

 31 Management style 0.011 of your superiors Increase group cohesiveness -.161 32 Management style 0.001 of your superiors Provide advancement opportunities Management style 0.000 of your superiors Increase career development opportunities -.202 -.244 -.256 35 Management style 0.001 of your superiors Compensation -.213 5.9 Multiple Response Analysis 5.9.1: What causes dissatisfaction at work? Table 5.9.1: Causes for dissatisfaction at work

The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak. Correlation is significant at 99% confidence limit The variables are negatively correlated The strength of correlation is weak.

33

34

Management style 0.000 of your superiors Defined benefit plan

Dichotomy label Lack of group cohesiveness Lack of career development Lack of job satisfaction Lack of defined benefit plan Lack of good compensation

Count 80 121

Responses 10.7 14.8 16.2 122 16.3 7.8 14.0 41 20 8.2 ----100.0 42.0 3.9

Cases 32.0 44.4 48.4 48.8 23.2 11.6 5.5 2.7 24.4 ----299.2 16.4 8.0

Lack of Advancement opportunities 111

58 105 29

Lack of good working environment Lack of good food Lack of good transport facilities

Management style of your superiors 61 ----Total responses 0 missing cases; 250 valid cases Inference: 748

The following have been ranked as the main causes for dissatisfaction at work Lack of job satisfaction Lack of career development Lack of Advancement opportunities Lack of good compensation 16.2 % 14.8 % 14.0 % 16.3 %

5.9.2: What are the reasons for you to stay at your present job? Table 5.9.2: Reasons for staying in the present job Dichotomy label Group Cohesiveness Advancement opportunities Career development Defined benefit plan Job satisfaction Compensation Working Environment Management style of your superior Total responses 0 missing cases; 250 valid cases Inference: The following have been ranked as the main reasons to stay in the present job Working Environment Group Cohesiveness Compensation Job satisfaction 21 % 16.9 % 14.1 % 13.5 % 124 80 90 37 99 103 154 45 ----732 14.1 21.0 Count 16.9 Responses 49.6 10.9 12.3 5.1 13.5 41.2 61.6 6.1 ----100.0 18.0 ----292.8 39.6 32.0 36.0 14.8 Cases

5.10 Content Analysis 5.10: What is the intention behind the employees to leave the organization? Table 5.10: Reasons behind the intention to leave the organization

Reasons for intention to leave (Value tabulated = 1) Dichotomy label Personal Routine job Lack of job satisfaction No recognition No reason Stress Pursue higher studies No career development Company policy Relocating spouse/partner Night shift Better compensation Career opportunities elsewhere Poor health Total responses 9 missing cases; 241 valid cases Count Pct Responses 9 8 1 2 70 28 18 10 2 4 26 37 29 4 248 4 3 0 1 28 11 7 4 1 2 11 15 12 2 100 Cases 3.7 3.3 0.4 0.8 29 11.6 7.5 4.1 0.8 1.7 10.8 15.4 12 1.7 102.8

Graph 5.10: Reasons behind the intention to leave the organization

Reasons behind the intention to leave

Poor health Career opportunities elsew here Better compensation Night shift Relocating spouse/partner

2% 12% 15% 11% 2% 1% 4% 7% 11% 28% 1% 0% 3% 4%

Percentage

Company policy No career development Pursue higher studies Stress Nil No reason No recognition Lack of job satisfaction Routine job Personal

0.00% 5.00% 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 % % % % % Reasons

Inference: 1. It was found that 15% of the employees would leave the organization if they get a better compensation in the industry 2. 12% of the employees would leave the organization if they feel that the new opportunity gives them a better career 3. 11% of the employees said that, stress is also a reason for them to leave the organization 4. 11% of the employees said that working in night shifts is also a reason for them to leave the organization

5.11 Frequency Distribution Table 5.11.1: Frequency table representing the rating of TL by the respective team members

Frequency Very poor Poor Medium Valid Good Very good Total 89 110 250 10 7 34

Percent 4 3 14 35 44 100

Graph 5.11.1: Rating of TL by the respective team members 60 40 20 0

very poor poor medium Rating good very good Rating of the TL

Percentage

35 4 3 14

44

Inference: 44 % of the employees have rated the Team Leader with whom they work as very good

5.11.2 Working Conditions Table 5.11.2.1: Rating the physical working condition

Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total 61 169 19 1 250

Percent 24 68 8 0 100

Graph 5.11.2.1: Rating the physical working condition

Working Conditions - Respondent's Physical Conditions

80 60 40 20 0

Percentage

68 24

8 Agree Disagree Rating

0 Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Inference: 1. 68% of the employees agree that their physical conditions are good 2. 8% of the employees disagree that their physical conditions are good

Table 5.11.2.2: Rating the balance between work and personal life

Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly Disagree Total 61 147 36 6 250

Percent 24 59 14 3 100

Graph 5.11.2.2: Rating the balance between work and personal life

Working Conditions - Reasonable balance betw en w ork and personal life 70 59 60 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Rating Strongly Disagree 24 14 3

Inference: 1. 59% of the employees agree to that there is reasonable balance between work and personal life 2. 24% of employees strongly agree while 2.4 % strongly disagree to the fact that there is reasonable balance between work and personal life

5.11.3 Immediate Team Leader Table 5.11.3.1: Rating of Team Leader for treating the employees fairly Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total 90 142 11 7 250 Percent 36 57 4 3 100

Graph 5.11.3.1: Rating of Team Leader for treating the employees fairly

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

TL treats fairly 57 36

Percentage

4 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Rating

3 Strongly disagree

Inference: 1. 57% of the employees agree that the team leader treats them fairly 2. 36% of the employees strongly agree that the Team leader treats them fairly 3. 7% of the employees disagree that the Team leader treats them fairly Table 5.11.3.2: Rating of Team Leader for treating the employees with respect

Frequency

Percent

Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total

130 113 3 4 250

52 45 1 2 100

Graph 5.11.3.2: Rating of Team Leader for treating the employees with respect

Team Leader treats with respect 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 52 Percentage 45

1 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Rating

2 Strongly disagree

Inference: 1. 45% of the employees agree that the team leader treats them with respect 2. 52 % of the employees strongly agree that the Team leader treats them with respect 3. 2% strongly disagree that the Team leader treats them with respect

Table 5.11.3.3: Rating of Team leaders ability to handle the employee related issues satisfactorily

Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total 106 135 4 5 250

Percent 42.4 54 1.6 2 100

Graph 5.11.3.3: Rating of Team leaders ability to handle the employee related issues satisfactorily

Team Leader handles the work related issues satisfactorily 2% Strongly 2% 42% agree Agree Disagree Strongly diasgree

54%

Inference: 1. 54 % of the employees agree that the team leader handles the work related issues satisfactorily 2. 42 % of the employees strongly agree that the Team leader handles the work related issues satisfactorily

Table 5.11.3.4: Team Leaders rating for involving team members in making decisions process

Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total 86 135 24 5 250

Percent 34 54 10 2 100

Graph 5.11.3.4: Team Leaders rating for involving team members in making decisions process
Team Leader asks my input to make decisions

10%

2% 34%

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

54%

Inference: 1. 54% of the employees agree that the team leader asks their input 2. 34% of the employees strongly agree that the Team leader asks their input 3. 2% disagree that the Team leader asks their input

Table 5.11.3.5: Rating of Team leader as an effective manager

Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total 117 115 14 4 250

Percent 46 46 6 2 100

Graph 5.11.3.5: Rating of Team leader as an effective manager

My Team Leader is an effective manager

6%

2% 46% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

46%

Inference: 1. 46% of the employees agree that the team leader is an effective manager 2. 46% of the employees strongly agree that their Team leader is an effective manager 3. 2% disagree that the Team leader is an effective manager

5.11.4 Recognition and Rewards Table 5.11.4.1: Employee rating for doing good work to make more money Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total 74 138 21 17 250 Percent 30 55 8 7 100

Graph 5.11.4.1: Employee rating for doing good work to make more money

Count on making more money

8% 7% 30%

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

55%

Inference: 1. 55 % of the employees strongly agree that they do work, counting to make more money 2. 7 % disagree that they do work, counting to make more money

Table 5.11.4.2: Employee rating for doing good work for promotion

Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total 40 60 109 41 250

Percent 16 24 44 16 100

Graph 5.11.4.2: Employee rating for doing good work for promotion

Count on promotion

16%

16% Strongly agree Agree Disagree 24% Strongly disagree

44%

Inference: 1. 44% of the employees disagree that they do work for promotion 2. 16% of the employees strongly agree that they do work for promotion 3. 16% disagree that they do work for promotion 5.11.5 On a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), how loyal are you to company? Table 5.11.5: Loyalty of the employees to the company

Frequency Highly disloyal Disloyal Valid Moderate Loyal Highly loyal Total 5 6 44 81 114 250

Percent 2 2 18 32 46 100

Graph 5.11.5: Loyalty of the employees to the company

How loyal are you to the company

2%

2%

18%
Highly disloyal Disloyal Moderate Loyal Highly loyal

46%

32%

Inference: 1. 46% of the employees are highly loyal to their company 2. 2% of the employees are disloyal while another 2 % are highly disloyal to the company 5.11.6 Do you feel satisfied in your current job? Table 5.11.6: Satisfactory level of the employees Frequency Valid Highly satisfied 26 Percent 10

Satisfied Dissatisfied Highly dissatisfied Total Graph 5.11.6: Satisfactory level of the employees

102 112 10 250

41 45 4 100

Satisfaction in current job

4% 45% 10%

Highly satisfied Satisfied

41%

Dissatisfied Highly dissatisfied

Inference: 1. 45% of the employees are dissatisfied with the current job 2. 41% of the employees are satisfied with the current job 3. 10% are highly satisfied with the current job

5.11.7 Are you considering leaving your job for another? Table 5.11.7: Frequency table showing the seriousness of employees in leaving the present Job for another Frequency Not at all Not seriously Valid Seriously Very seriously Total 31 103 102 14 250 Percent 12 41 41 6 100

Graph 5.11.7: Graph showing the seriousness of employees in leaving the present Job for another
Considering leaving the job 6% 41% Not at all Not seriously Seriously 41% Very seriously 12%

Inference: 1. 41% of the employees are seriously considering leaving the job 2. 12% dont have any such intention

5.11.8 Intention to Leave Table 5.11.8: Frequency table showing the employees intention to leave the company Frequency No intention In next twelve months Valid In next six months In next three months Total 90 50 72 38 250 Percent 36 20 29 15 100

Graph 5.11.8: Frequency table showing the employees intention to leave the company
Intention to leave

15% 36%

No intention In next twelve months

29% 20%

In next six months In next three months

Inference: 1. 36% of the employees have no intention to leave the job 2. 15% of the employees have an intention to leave the job in next 3 months 3. 29% of the employees have an intention to leave the job in next 6 months

5.11.9 On a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), how confident are you that you can find a better job somewhere else? Table 5.11.9: Confidence level of the employees in finding a better job somewhere else

Frequency Completely not confident Doubtful Valid Moderate Confident Very confident Total 7 19 12 84 128 250

Percent 3 8 5 33 51 100

Graph 5.11.9: Confidence level of the employees in finding a better job somewhere else

Confidence of finding a job somewhere else completely not confident doubtful moderate 33% confident very confident

3% 51%

8% 5%

Inference: 1. 51% of the employees are very confident about getting the job elsewhere 2. 33% of the employees are confident about getting the job elsewhere

5.11.10 On a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), how would you rate the efforts of your company to retain good people? Table 5.11.10: Frequency table showing the efforts of the company in retaining the good people Frequency Very low Low Moderate Valid High Very high Total 22 25 96 77 30 250 Percent 9 10 38 31 12 100

Graph 5.11.10: Graph showing the efforts of the company in retaining the good people
Efforts of your company to retain good people

12%

9%

10%

very low low moderate

31% 38%

high very high

Inference: 1. 38% of the employees rated the companys effort to retain good people as very high 2. 9% of the employees rated the companys effort to retain good people as very low

5.11.11 Are you given recognition for the work you do? Table 5.11.11: Employee recognition for the work done Frequency Good recognition Reasonable recognition Valid Poor recognition No recognition Total 30 119 70 31 250 Percent 12 48 28 12 100

Graph 5.11.11: Employee recognition for the work done

Recognition for the work good recognition reasonable recognition poor recognition no recognition

12%

12%

28%

48%

Inference: 1. 48% of the employees feel that they are given reasonable recognition 2. 12% of the employees feel that they are not given recognition

5.11.12 Current Job fits with career aspirations

Table 5.11.12: Frequency table showing whether the current job fits with their career aspirations

Frequency Strongly agree Agree Valid Disagree Strongly disagree Total 12 110 102 26 250

Percent 5 44 41 10 100

Graph 5.11.12: Graph showing whether the current job fits with their career aspirations

Current job fits in with the larger carrier aspirations

10%

5%

Strongly agree Agree

41% 44%

Disagree Strongly disagree

Inference: 1. 41% of the employees disagree that the current job fits in with their larger carrier aspirations 2. 44 % of the employees agree to the same

5.11.13 Do you feel you have gained value from your current job? Table 5.11.13.1: Professionally gained value from current job by the employee Frequency Very highly Highly Valid Poorly No value Total 40 102 79 29 250 Percent 16 40 32 12 100

Graph 5.11.13.1: Professionally gained value from current job by the employee
Gained value professionally

12%

16%

Very highly Highly Poorly

32% 40%

No value

Inference: 1. 16% of the employees feel that they have highly gained value professionally 2. 12% feel that they have received no value, professionally

Table 5.11.13.2: Personally gained value from current job by the employees

Frequency Very highly Highly Valid Poorly No value Total 46 132 28 44 250

Percent 18 53 11 18 100

Graph 5.11.13.2: Personally gained value from current job by the employees

Gained value personally

18% 11%

18%
Very highly Highly Poorly No value

53%

Inference: 1. 18% of the employees feel that they have highly gained value, personally 2. 18% feel that they have received no value, personally

5.11.14 How well do you think you have met the companys expectations of you? Table 5.11.14: Meeting Companys expectation

Frequency Very well Somewhat Poorly Not met Total 135 112 1 2 250

Percent 54 45 0 1 100

Valid

Graph 5. 11.14: Meeting Companys expectation

How well do you think you have met company's expectations

1% 45% 54%
Very well Somewhat Poorly Not met

Inference: 1. 54% of the employees feel that, they have met the companys expectations very well 2. Only 1% of the employees feel that, they have not met the companys expectations

5.12 Chi-square analysis 5.12.1 Are there more positive than negative aspects to your job?

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between employees perception regarding positive and negative aspects of the job at 95 % confidence interval. Alternate Hypothesis: There is significant difference between employees perception regarding positive and negative aspects of the job at 95 % confidence interval.
Are there more positive than negative aspects to your job? Yes No Total Observed N 140 110 250 Expected N 125.0 125.0 Residual 15.0 -15.0

Test Statistics Are there more positive than negative aspects to your job? 3.600 1 .058

Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 125.0.

Inference: The significance level (.058) is greater than .05; hence null hypothesis is not rejected. So, there is no significant difference between employees perception regarding positive and negative aspects of the job at 95 % confidence interval. 5.12.2 Was the attitude of your direct supervisor/ manager the primary factor in you quitting a previous job? Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between employees perceptions regarding the attitude of their direct supervisor/ manager in being a primary factor of quitting a previous job. Alternate Hypothesis: There is significant difference between employees perceptions regarding the attitude of their direct supervisor/ manager in being a primary factor of quitting a previous job.

W s the a a ttitude o yo dire sup rviso a ge f ur ct e r/m na r the p a fa r in yo quitting a p vio jo ? rim ry cto u re us b O bserved N Y es N o T otal 18 22 3 2 50 E xpected N 12 5.0 12 5.0 R esidual -107.0 107.0

Test Statistics Was the attitude of your direct supervisor/manager the primary factor in you quitting a previous job? 183.184 1 .000

Chi-Square df Asymp. Sig.

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 125.0.

Inference: The significance level (.000) is less than .05; hence null hypothesis is rejected. So, there is significant difference between employees perceptions regarding the attitude of their direct supervisor/ manager in being a primary factor of quitting a previous job.

CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS F.1. Attrition cost: Attrition cost of CSEs is estimated to Rs 68 lakhs (Approx) without taking into account to the following costs of turnover, I. Hiring costs Training costs II. Separation costs (Table 5.1)

F.2. 2. F.3. F.4. 3. Majority (63%) of turnover are attributed to Engineering and MCA Attrition rate: Median attrition rate prevailing in HCL is 5%, which is much higher than the target attrition rate of 3% (Table 5.2) Majority (69%) of attrition is due to CSE level of employees (Table 5.3)

graduates (Table 5.4) F.5. Significant number of employees (47%) left the job without informing the Organisation. Some of the employees (15%) left the job for better job opportunities elsewhere (Table 5.5) F.6. I. Most of the turnover was in the period between 3-6 months (51%). Significant 1. numbers of employees (35%), leave between 6-12months (Table 5.6) F.7. Most of the attrition is due to male employees (64%) (Table 5.7) F.8. Significant numbers of employees have identified the following as main reasons behind intention to leave I. II. III. IV. Better compensation Career opportunities elsewhere Stress on job Working in night shift (Table 5.10)

F.9.

Significant number of employees (44%) has rated their TLs favorably

(Table

5.11.1) F.10. Some of the employees (16%) feel that they are not able to keep a reasonable balance between work and personal life (Table 5.11.2.2) F.11. Some of the employees (15%) disagree that good work will not lead to better compensation (Table 5.11.4.1) F.12. Majority of the employees (60%) disagree that good work leads to Promotion (Table 5.11.4.2) F.13. Majority of the employees (49%) feel dissatisfied with their current job 5.11.6) F.14. Majority of the employees (47%) seriously consider to leave their current job (Table 5.11.7) F.15. 6. Majority of the employees (84%) are confident in finding a better job somewhere else (Table 5.11.9) F.16. Significant number of employees (30%) do not feel that they have gained personally or professionally from their current job (Table 5.11.13) F.17. Significant number of employees (40%)do not feel that they are given recognition for their work (Table 5.11.11) F.18. Significant number of employees (51%) disagree that the current job fits in with their larger career aspirations (Table 5.11.12) (Table

CHAPTER 7 ABSTRACT

The title of the Project done Photon infotech is The effectiveness of the performance appraisal system in the organization. Performance appraisal may be understood as the assessment of an individual performance in a systematic way in the organization.

The study was needed to know the effectiveness of the Performance Appraisal system. It helps in identifying the needs of the employees and it also assists in taking corrective actions.

The main objective of the study was to study the method of existing performance appraisal system in the company and to analyze if any modification is necessary. It was also helpful in knowing how the performance appraisal motivates or improves the morale of the organization. The scope of the study deals with preference of the employees regarding the purpose, benefits and barriers.

The type of sampling used in this method is disproportionate stratified sampling. The sources of the data required for the study were primary and secondary data. The survey

was conducted for a period of four month. The data obtained from these areas state the effectiveness of the performance appraisal during the study.

The study is conducted with questionnaire supplied to 100 employees only, the study was the time bound as the respondents had to be disturbed from their work. The study has helped to know the performance of the employees better and also assisted in identifying the needs of the employees. This helps to improve the effectiveness of the performance appraisal that in turn leads to better productivity from the employees.

FINDINGS

Most of the employees in the organization are between the age group of 36-50.

It has been found that most of the employees in the company have at least five years of experience.

It is inferred that most of the employees are satisfied with their job It is seen that most of the respondents are Graduates and diploma holders. Most of them in the company are aware of the existing performance appraisal system to limited extent.

It is inferred that most of the employees agree that performance appraisal system helps in better understanding between superior and subordinate to perform better.

Most of the respondents in the organization do not participate in the Performance appraisal meetings.

It is inferred that the graduate employees working in the organization feel that the targets given to them are attainable.

It is seen that the diploma holder employee in the organization feel that the targets given to them are challenging.

It is observed that most of the respondents are satisfied with the guidance provided by the superior.

It is inferred that the major barrier experienced by the employees while undergoing performance appraisal is insufficient time.

It is seen that most of the respondents dont know to express their feeling at the end of the appraisal.

It is inferred that most of the employees feel that modification is necessary for the method of performance appraisal system conducted in the company.

SUGGESTION

Team leaders have to understand the employees in proper dimension and assess that performance periodically.

The existing performance appraisal system should have more exposure in such a way that all the employees participate in the performance appraisal meetings.

The superiors should guide their team members than before in order meet more improvement and achievements.

Unless the performance appraisal system is used effectively, the employees will not be motivated and the overall effectiveness will be affected

It is also suggested that sufficient time should be given for an effective performance appraisal to take place.

The performance is based on the overall performance of the employees.

Thus if the performance appraisal is modified, it would be more effective and efficient.

CONCLUSION

The performance appraisal system is found to be effective and has satisfied the employees to some extent. Performance Appraisal should not be biased. Performance Appraisal needs more concentration, as this step is the foundation for any cost-effective venture.

The study has helped to know the performance and perception of the employees. It has also assisted in identifying the needs of the employees. This helps to improve the

effectiveness of the performance appraisal that in turn leads to better productivity from the employees.

The Effectiveness of Performance Appraisal Questionnaire (Please tick appropriate boxes and provide details as required) 1. 2. 2b. 3. Gender Male Female

Department Designation / Grade .. Age <26 yrs 27-35 yrs 36-45 yrs 46-50 yrs > 51 yrs

4.

Educational Qualification Graduate Post Graduate Diploma Other (specify) No. of years served at photon ---------------------- Yrs Total work experience------------------ Yrs. How aware are you of the performance appraisal system followed by photon. To a great extent To a limited extent Not at all How would you rate the present performance appraisal system Good Satisfactory Poor No idea

5. 6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

Performance Appraisal system helps to develop a better understanding between the superior and subordinate to perform better. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Do you fully participate in performance appraisal meeting ?

 11.

Yes No

Do you & your reporting authority agree with targets fixed ? Yes No

12.

Are the targets given ? Attainable Challenging Not realistic Others Please specify)

13.

Are you satisfied with the guidance provided by your superior ? Highly satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Highly Dissatisfied

14.

How far you and your reporting authority agree with the major improvements & achievements made by you ? Completely to a great extent to a limited extent Not at all

14a

Are your suggestions Generally Considered Ignored

15.

Which of the following barriers have you experienced while undergoing performance Appraisals ? Inattentive Appraisers Insufficient time Improver Database Others (Please specify) ..

16. 17. 18. 19.

What is your opinion about using performance Appraisal? Career Development Fixing of targets Pay revision All the above At the end of the appraisal do you feel? Delighted Encouraged to a certain extent Discouraged Dont know Do you think modification is necessary for the method of performance appraisal conducted in your company? Yes No If yes, Your Suggestion_________________________________________ __________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BY P. SUBBA RAO

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY BY KOTHARI

PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF MANAGEMENT L.M.PRASAD

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BY LOUIS R. GOMEZ MEJA DAVID B. BALKIN ROBERT L. CARDY

ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR L.M. PRASAD

REFERENCES

Books: C.B Mamoria (2002) Personnel Management, 21st Edition, House Donald R. Cooper & Ramela S. Schinder (2000) Business Research Methods, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited 1. Uma Sekaran (2000) Research Methods for Business, John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2. Fred Luthens, Organizational Behavior, E-Resources: 1. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jws/smi/1998/00000014/00000001/art0075 2; jsessionid=5o5qji5ak1tpr.henrietta 2. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jws/smi/1998/00000014/00000001/art0076 4; jsessionid=5o5qji5ak1tpr.henrietta 3. http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec082004/av1.asp 4. http://www.it-hrnow.com/mod3.htm 5. http://www.it-hrnow.com/mod4.htm 6. http://www.it-hrnow.com/mod5.htm 7. http://www.it-hrnow.com/mod7.htm 8. www.budget.state.ny.us/citizen/financial/misc.html Himalaya Publishing