Performance management system – Core
Business School
Rekha Attri and Rahul Bairagi
Rekha Attri is based at the
Department of Marketing,
Jaipuria Institute of
Management Indore,
Indore, India.
Rahul Bairagi is a Senior
Manager – Administration at
the Department of Marketing,
Jaipuria Institute of
Management Indore,
Indore, India.
Disclaimer. This case is written
solely for educational purposes
and is not intended to represent
successful or unsuccessful
managerial decision making.
The author/s may have disguised
names; financial, and other
recognizable information to
protect confidentiality.
PAGE 294 j THE CASE JOURNAL
Introduction about Core Business School
Core Business School was established in the year 2008 with a vision for creating business leaders
par excellence by imparting quality education. The business school was located in Central India
and it offered a post-graduate diploma in management program, which was approved by the All
India Council of Technical Education (AICTE). A dedicated team of faculty members known for their
achievements were drawn from academia as well as industry who would enable Core Business
School to achieve high levels of academic excellence and research quality.
The management of the institute believed in “Excellence through Education” and therefore the
curriculum at the business school was very rigorous and designed in such a fashion that
the students would be challenged to do creative thinking and think beyond just text books. As
the institute was new, the faculty members had to share multiple responsibilities of institution
building such as supervising different departments like admission and marketing, placements,
library, accounts, etc. along with academic responsibilities.
The biggest challenge for the institute was to make its mark in the market so that it could attract
applications from quality students. The admission numbers were always an area of concern as
the education market was crowded with the mushrooming growth of many business schools
which believed in luring students with package deals like foreign visits, free laptops, certification
courses, etc. but the founders of Core Business School did not believe in loud marketing
communication activities and were of the viewpoint that a good word of mouth would attract
students who valued academic rigor. The faculty members were very motivated in handling
multiple tasks and working towards imparting quality education because they were assured by
the management, as they were the founder faculty members, that their careers would grow as
the institute grew.
Faculty board meeting 2013
The academic session 2012-2013 at Core Business School had ended and the first year
students had left for Summer internship projects. Very few second year students were left for final
placements and despite being a very new management institute established in 2008 the average
package taken by the students was around 5 lacs per annum. Though there was excitement
about good placements (both final placements and Summer internship opportunities), but the
internal discussions among the faculty and staff members of the institute were full of
apprehensions and discontent.
In the board meeting held on May 10, 2013, it was decided that there would be a uniform
increment of 5 percent given to all the faculty and staff positions. This decision of board members
was communicated to the faculty members by the director of the institute in the faculty board
meeting held on May 14, 2013. All the faculty members were taken aback at this decision of the
board members. Their concerns were quite logical because when there was no formal
performance appraisal system in place till academic session 2011-2012, uniform increments of
10 percent were given to all on the pretext that there was no system of judging the level of
individual performance and till each member was not evaluated comprehensively on the various
j VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017, pp. 294-307, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1544-9106 DOI 10.1108/TCJ-06-2016-0051
roles and responsibilities handled by him, there could not be any parameter on which variable
increments could be decided.
It was therefore during the last annual board meeting held on May 4, 2012, that the director of the
institute had emphasized the need to have a formal appraisal system. The board members had
agreed to this and had asked the director of the institute to work on the same in coordination with
a few faculty members. Soon after the board meeting in May 2012, the director had initiated the
process of designing performance appraisal forms for the faculty and staff. One faculty member
from a HR background along with the dean academics was entrusted with the responsibility of
coming up with the parameters on which each member associated with the institute would be
appraised. The appraisal form was finalized by the end of June and was approved by the board
members to be implemented in the academic session 2012-2013. All the faculty members were
briefed about the various parameters on which they would be appraised every trimester end.
The appraisal forms were filled in at the end of each trimester and after the end of the academic
session all faculty members were looking forward to the ratings given to them and finally the
increments linked to the same.
Their concern was why despite administering the formal appraisal system in the academic
session 2012-2013, there was no linkage of performance to annual increments. The only
response that the faculty members received from the director of the institute was that since the
admission numbers for academic session 2013-2014 were very poor then the board members
were not agreeing to give any increment this year. It was only after lot of persuading that the board
members agreed to give a 5 percent increment to all and so faculty members should be happy
that instead of getting no increment they are at least given a 5 percent increment looking at the
admission numbers and the tough market conditions. The low increment was not what was
bothering the faculty members and they said that they completely understood that if market
dynamics are not in their favor then they were ready for lower increments but again those
increments should be based on performance appraisal scores and not on admission numbers.
Some faculty members argued that such an action should be for the marketing and admissions
department under the supervision of the faculty incharge who were directly linked in getting
numbers for the next academic session and not on all the faculty members whose role in getting
admissions was minimal or more of a support function. The director just put on a sorry face in
front of the faculty board stating that he tried his best and the faculty members left the conference
room with discontent. The HR faculty and the dean academics felt that all their efforts of designing
and administering the performance appraisal system for the past year had just gone down
the drain. The dean academics quietly went back to her office and started remembering all the
iterations that had gone in for coming up with an acceptable performance appraisal criterion.

Designing of a performance appraisal form

Many rounds of faculty board meetings were held in which faculty members in the presence of the
director brainstormed over the parameters which needed to be considered during appraisal
process coming as a flashback to the dean academics. Since the institute was very new, so each
member was handling multiple responsibilities of institution building, administration, and teaching.
The teaching loads of faculty members were also not equally distributed. Some faculty members
were handling as many as three courses per trimester while a few had just one course to handle.
Further the responsibilities of an institution building were also not equally divided. For instance a
faculty member of finance handling three courses of finance specialization along with handling the
work of annual AICTE compliance was also incharge of a boy’s hostel. For any purchasing which
had to be done for the institution, the same finance faculty member was required to call for
quotations from vendors and then enter into final negotiations. He was also required to take the
responsibility of handling requests/grievances of guards, peons, etc. Likewise some faculty
members were overloaded with teaching as well as administrative work while others did not have
much teaching responsibility or administrative and institution building assignments.
In the faculty board meeting there were heated discussions, where the faculty members who
had less teaching, administrative and institution building responsibilities complained that they
were never trusted by the management to handle different responsibilities. Their argument was

VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017 j THE CASE JOURNAL j PAGE 295

 that they should not suffer during performance appraisal because of lopsided allocation of
responsibilities by the management. They even offered to handle more teaching load as they were
apprehensive that it would result in their poor performance appraisal and that too for no fault of
theirs. In another meeting there were arguments put forth by faculty members against writing
research papers. The reasoning put forward by them was that since the institute was new and
they were loaded with administrative and institution building responsibilities, hence they should
not be expected to write research papers because writing research papers required spare time,
which was very scarce in the given scenario. Some members who were pursuing their PhD were
into writing research papers and were therefore not buying the idea of scrapping the criteria of
publication of research papers in journals from the appraisal form. The dean academics
recollected how she along with the HR faculty was getting jitters while reaching a consensus for
the appraisal criteria.

Faculty performance appraisal key result area (KRA) I – academics

As a result of number of meetings, the first criterion of the faculty appraisal, i.e. academic
performance was presented for approval by the faculty board. The parameter on which each
faculty member was to be appraised at the end of each trimester was based on the feedback
received from the students at the end of each trimester for each course. Since classroom
teaching involved activities of course preparation, course delivery and finally course evaluation,
each of the three activities were further detailed with key performance indicators (KPIs) and
students were asked to rate each faculty member on a scale of 0-4 where 0 was for strongly
disagree and 4 was for strongly agree, for the courses taught to them (refer to Table AI).
The rating which was represented for each KPI was the modal value of the rating given by the
students in their feedback forms. For example for Course 1 in a class of 60 students if 30 students
gave a rating of 3, 20 gave a rating of 2 and 10 students gave a rating of 1 to a faculty member for
the question on course content being up to date under the course preparation subheading then
the modal value of rating, i.e. 3 would be taken for course content being up to date. Likewise the
modal value for rating of course guide being made available on time could be 3 (Table AI).
The average points which a faculty member received for KRA-course preparation, which had two
KPIs under it (Rows A1 and A2) (Table AI), were calculated using the formula:
Average Pts. ¼ Sum total of modal values/No. of KPIs in that category/maximum rating possible.
(e.g. out of maximum four points a faculty member received three points for the course guide
being made available on time and again three points for the course content being up to date.
His average points, therefore, would be (3+3)/2/4 ¼ 0.75).
Similarly for KRA – course delivery which had seven KPIs under it (from B1 to B7) and for
KRA-evaluation which had three KPIs under it (C1-C3) the average points were calculated using
the modal values obtained from student feedback for each KPI for a course (Table AI).
Most of the faculty members agreed upon the calculation of scores for each course. However,
there were some apprehensions and queries which needed to be addressed. The concern of few
faculty members was that there was a huge load in terms of evaluation when a faculty member
handled a core course where the whole batch had to be evaluated as compared to electives
where the enrollments were few. Moreover, handling a three credit course which required
a minimum 30 hours of teaching engagement was more taxing as compared to handling a
1.5 credit course which required only 15 hours of teaching. So brainstorming was required on
how to calculate scores when a three credit course was handled in two sections and for the
whole batch vs conducted for limited number of students in an elective course.

Calculation of academic points

The dean academics reflected how difficult it was trying to figure out how to resolve the concern
of faculty members who were very right in voicing their concerns about adopting the performance
appraisal criterion. It was unanimously agreed that if any faculty member handled a
particular course in two batches, then the score for preparation time for the lecture would be

PAGE 296 j THE CASE JOURNAL j VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017

considered only once. Hence, if the course is to be delivered twice in different sections, then for
the second delivery the preparation weightage would be 0 as the preparation time would be nil.
Also it was resolved that the average points scored by a faculty member for a course for its
preparation and delivery would be multiplied with the credits allotted to the course. Further, the
evaluation load depended upon the number of students enrolled for the course. This would mean that
in the case of a smaller number of student enrollments the evaluation load on the faculty would be less.
Therefore, it was agreed upon that the evaluation points scored (from Table AI) would be multiplied
with the credits of the course and also with the strength of the class/total strength of the batch.
Thus, the task to calculate the total academic score for the faculty in a particular course involved
calculating the following three scores:
1. Preparation score ¼ Credits allotted to the course × Average points of course preparation
(from Table AI);
2. Delivery score ¼ Credits allotted to the course × Average points of course delivery
(from Table AI); and
3. Evaluation score ¼ Credits allotted to the course × (no. of students enrolled/Total strength of
batch) × Average points of course delivery (from Table AI).
For example: from Table AI the average points received by a faculty for Course 1 under the three
KRAs are: course preparation ¼ 0.75, course delivery ¼ 0.71, evaluation ¼ 0.83.
Total no. of students in the class ¼ 60.
No. of students enrolled in core course ¼ 60.
The calculation of total score for a faculty taking course 1 can be depicted under different
scenarios:

Scenario A: when a core course of three credits is taught to a class of 60 students

Total score ¼ Preparation score (3 × 0.75 ¼ 2.25) + Delivery score (3 × 0.71 ¼ 2.13) + Evaluation
score (3 × 60/60 × 0.83 ¼ 2.49).
Total score for faculty teaching core course of three credits ¼ 2.25 + 2.13 + 2.49, i.e. 6.87.

Scenario B: when the delivery of the core course of three credits is repeated in the other section
Total score ¼ Preparation score (0; since no extra preparation time is required to deliver the same
content in second section) + Delivery score (3 × 0.71 ¼ 2.13) + Evaluation score (3 × 60/
60 × 0.83 ¼ 2.49).
Total score for faculty when the delivery of the core course of three credits is repeated in the other
section ¼ 0 + 2.13 + 2.49, i.e. 4.62.

Scenario C: when a core course of 1.5 credits is taught to a class of 35 students

Total score ¼ Preparation score (1.5 × 0.75 ¼ 1.13) + Delivery score (1.5 × 0.71 ¼ 1.07) +
Evaluation score (1.5 × 35/60 × 0.83 ¼ 0.73).
Total score for faculty teaching core course of three credits ¼ 1.13 + 1.07 + 0.73, i.e. 2.93 (refer
to Table AII).
This resolved the issue of handling a three credit course vs a 1.5 credit course with all students
not being enrolled for a particular course and also it took care of situations where the same faculty
member conducted the course in two sections.

Faculty performance appraisal KRA II – research and publication

Despite the resistance of many faculty members to include research and publication
into appraisal criteria, the director of the institute supported the inclusion of the same in

VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017 j THE CASE JOURNAL j PAGE 297

 performance appraisal, stating that for any academic institution, the number and quality of
research publications are important criteria. The faculty members were required to provide
information at the end of every trimester under the following heads:
1. Publications:
■ referred journal research papers published during appraisal period;
■ referred conference research papers published during appraisal period;
■ working papers/projects (papers in progress/ submitted for publication/papers under
review);
■ books, monographs; and
■ seminars/ conferences/workshop/ MDPs/FDPs attended during appraisal period.
2. Technical reports:
■ published in journal;
■ submitted in conference; and
■ published in newspapers, magazines.
3. Sponsored R&D, consultancy and extension tasks.
4. Institute consultancy projects (MDPs/FDPs) (highlighting the client and revenue generated
for the institute).
The motivating factors for research and publication as well as the constraints encountered also
had to be detailed while filling up the appraisal form. The research and publication points were
thereafter calculated (refer to Table AIII).

Faculty performance appraisal KRA III – management and institutional development

Although, there were administrative staff to handle various responsibilities like admission,
counseling, accounts, library, store, etc. but the faculty coordinators were given responsibilities to
supervise the smooth functioning of these departments. There were, however, certain other
institution building functions like managing different clubs, handling disciplinary issues, working
towards AICTE compliances, etc. which had to be solely handled by faculty members. In the area
of management and institutional development faculty members were required to do a self-
appraisal on a scale of 1-5 where 1 was for poor and 5 for outstanding performance. Since each
faculty members was handling different responsibilities, hence he/she was first required to tick
mark against the responsibilities handled and then do self-appraisal. This was to be further
appraised by the director of the institute (refer to Table AIV).

Some faculty members in the faculty board had raised concerns that not all tasks handled were
critical in nature. The tasks like admissions, placements, AICTE compliance, student
development, etc. were more critical in nature, while handling of various academic and non-
academic committees, store, library, etc. was not very critical. Since no consensus was reached
on how to give a differential treatment to management and institution building tasks, hence it was
agreed that for this first time when performance appraisal system would be administered all the
tasks would be treated at par.

Appraisal on competencies
The director of the institute believed that every faculty member should have certain
competencies which would create a vibrant culture for the institute. The competencies like
leadership qualities, proactive and innovative, interpersonal relationships, etc. were first to be
self-appraised by the faculty members on a scale of 1-5 (1 being poor and 5 being outstanding)
and thereafter they were to be appraised on the same scale by the director of the institute
(refer to Table AV).

PAGE 298 j THE CASE JOURNAL j VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017

Summation of total points earned
The points earned by the faculty members in academics, research and publication, management
and institution building and exhibiting competencies were finally summed up (refer to Table AVI).
After compilation of final scores the management had to categorize the points scored by faculty
members into three categories (e.g. below expectations, meeting expectations, and exceeding
expectations), and based upon the category into which the performance scores figured the
increments were to be decided by the management upon approval of board members.
But now all the efforts had gone in vain and the faculty members were pondering whether their
decision to join Core Business School was correct or not. They had put in all their efforts towards
each of their KRAs only to hear at the end that since the market conditions were tough and the
number of new admissions for the next session were low the performance appraisal forms filled
for the academic year 2012-2013 would not be considered. Many faculty members had already
made up their mind to search for a new job, while others were in a dilemma whether to continue
and wait for another year or quit.

Questions
1. Is the management at fault in not using performance appraisal criterion and deciding
increments based on the number of admissions?
2. What is your take on the performance appraisal criterion designed for Core Business
School? What immediate and long-term implications do this performance appraisal system
has according to you?
3. What are the changes you would like to bring about in the performance appraisal system at
Core Business School?
4. How would you, as a director handle the situation with the board members who were not
keen on implementing formal performance appraisal and instead took decision based on
admission numbers?

VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017 j THE CASE JOURNAL j PAGE 299

 Appendix 1

Table AI Student feedback modal value for courses handled by a faculty member

Feedback modal value

Course Course Course
S no. Item Course 1 2 3 4

A KRA – course preparation

A1 Course guide was available in advance 3
A2 The course content was up to date 3
Average Pts. (Sum of scores A1-A2/No. of key performance indicators (here 2) /maximum rating 6/2/
possible, i.e. 4) 4 ¼ 0.75
B KRA – course delivery
B1 Course contents were clearly communicated with enthusiasm 2
B2 Session plan was completed as per schedule 4
B3 Doubts were clarified satisfactorily 4
B4 Discussions related with practical situations 2
B5 Interest was created in the subject 3
B6 Sessions completed within time limits 3
B7 Class participation was encouraged 2
Average Pts. (Sum of scores from B1-B7/No. of key performance indicators (here 7) /maximum 20/7/
rating possible, i.e. 4) 4 ¼ 0.71
C Evaluation
C1 Expectations communicated in advance 4
C2 Constructive feedback provided 3
C3 Faculty member was not biased 3
Average Pts. (Sum of scores from C1-C3/No. of key performance indicators (here 3) /maximum 10/3/
rating possible, i.e. 4) 4 ¼ 0.83

Appendix 2
For example: from Table AI the average points received by a faculty for Course 1 under the three
KRAs are: course preparation ¼ 0.75, course delivery ¼ 0.71, evaluation ¼ 0.83.
Total no. of students in the class ¼ 60.
No. of students enrolled in core course ¼ 60.
Preparation score ¼ Credits allotted to the course × Average points of course preparation
(from Table AI).
Delivery score ¼ Credits allotted to the course × Average points of course delivery (from Table AI)
Evaluation score ¼ Credits allotted to the course × (no. of students enrolled/Total strength of
batch) × Average points of course delivery (from Table AI).

Table AII Calculation of total academic points for courses

No. of students Preparation Total score

S no. Course (credits) enrolled score Delivery score Evaluation score (example)

A Core (3) 60 3 × 0.75 ¼ 2.25 3 × 0.71 ¼ 2.13 3 × 60/ 2.25 + 2.13

60 × 0.83 ¼ 2.49 + 2.49 ¼ 6.87
B Core (3) (same course has a repeat delivery in 60 0 3 × 0.71 ¼ 2.13 3 × 60/ 0 + 2.13
second section) 60 × 0.83 ¼ 2.49 + 2.49 ¼ 4.62
C Core (1.5) 35 1.5 × 0.75 ¼ 1.13 1.5 × 0.71 ¼ 1.07 1.5 × 35/ 1.13 + 1.07
60 × 0.83 ¼ 0.73 + 0.73 ¼ 2.93
D Core (1.5) (same course has a repeat delivery 35 0 1.5 × 0.71 ¼ 1.07 1.5 × 35/ 0 + 1.07
in second section) 60 × 0.83 ¼ 0.73 + 0.73 ¼ 1.8
E Specialization (3) 40 3 × 0.75 ¼ 2.25 3 × 0.71 ¼ 2.13 3 × 40/ 2.25 + 2.13
60 × 0.83 ¼ 1.65 + 1.65 ¼ 6.03

PAGE 300 j THE CASE JOURNAL j VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017

Appendix 3

Table AIII Calculation of research and publication points

Appraisal
Research and publication KPIs Quantity (Q) Points (P) Total Q × P by superior

Publications
Referred journal research paper 4
Referred conference research paper 3
Working papers/projects 2
Books, monographs 10
Seminars/conferences/workshops/MDPs/FDPs 1
attended
Technical reports
Published in journal 3
Submitted in conference 2
Published in newspapers, magazines 1
Sponsored R&D, consultancy and extension tasks
Sponsored R&D, consultancy and extension tasks 10
Sponsored research projects 7
Institute consultancy projects 5
Conduct of FDPs/MDPs 5
Other extension tasks and taking guest lectures 2
Total points

Appendix 4

Table AIV Management and institution development points

Tick mark against the Self-appraisal Appraisal by

S no. Functional areas functional area handled (on a scale of 1-5) superior

1 Examination cell
2 Corporate and industry interaction
3 Systems, ERP and college website
4 Finance club
5 Marketing club
6 HR Club
7 Literary Club
8 Entrepreneurship cell
9 Promotions and network
management
10 Admissions and marketing
11 Construction, purchases and
infrastructure management
12 Housekeeping and management of
security personnel
13 Gardens and campus
beautification
14 Transport and conveyance
15 Mess and canteen
16 AICTE/Legal
17 Discipline
18 Library coordination
19 Accounting, payments and Audit
20 Student development and
placements
Total

VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017 j THE CASE JOURNAL j PAGE 301

 Appendix 5

Table AV Competencies appraisal

S no. Competencies Self-appraisal Rating by superior

1 Leadership
2 Proactive and innovative
3 Interpersonal skills
4 Time management
5 Stress management
6 Cooperation with departments
7 Exhibits organizational values
8 External recognition
9 Volunteer to carry out tasks
Total

Appendix 6

Table AVI Summation of points earned

Points earned Points earned

S no. Key result area (KRA) Points earned (trimester 1/4) (trimester 2/5) (trimester 3/6)

1 Academics (from Tables AI and AII) e.g. 5.37+1.32 + 2.36 + 1.38 ¼ 10.43 e.g. 8.43
2 Research and publication (from Table AIII) e.g. 3 e.g. 2
3 Management and Institutional Development e.g. 12 e.g. 6
(from Table AIV)
4 Competencies for KRA (from Table AV) e.g. 20 e.g. 24
Total e.g. 45.43 e.g.40.43

Corresponding author
Rekha Attri can be contacted at: rekha.attri@jaipuria.ac.in

PAGE 302 j THE CASE JOURNAL j VOL. 13 NO. 2 2017