A PROJECT REPORT ON

“A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ON MOREPEN LAB”

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT

FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
TO RASHTRASANTTUKDOJIMAHARAJNAGPURUNIVERSITY,
NAGPUR
FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020

SUBMITTED BY:
RAJNEESH CHANDRA

Enrolment no.:

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

Dr.MUKTAI DEV

SPECIALIZATION:(HUMAN RESOURCES)

Submitted Through:

ShriShivaji Education Society, Amravati’s

DR.PANJABRAO DESHMUKH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGY & RESEARCH,
DEPT.OF DHANWATE NATIONAL COLLEGE, NAGPUR
2019-2020
 Declaration

I hereby declare that the project report entitled “A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL ON MOREPEN LAB ” or any part thereof has not been submitted
earlier to any institution or university for the award of any other Diploma or Degree, not
the data has been derived from any thesis of any university.

The sources of material, data used in this study have been duly acknowledged.

RAJNEESH CHANDRA
Researcher

Place: Nagpur
Date:
 Acknowledgement

“It is not possible to prepare a project report without the assistance & encouragement of
other people.This one is certainly no exceptio”

On the very outset of this report, I would like to extend my sincere & heartfelt obligation
towards all the personages who have helped me in this endavor, Without their active
guidance ,help,cooperation & encouragement.
I am extremely thankful and pay my gratitude to my Faculty Dr.Hemant Babhulkar for his
valuable guidance and support on comletion of this project in its presenlty.
I extend my gratitude to DR. PANJABRAO DESHMUKH INSTITUTE OF
MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY & RESEARCH, Dhanwate National College for giving
me this opportunity.
I also acknowledge with deep sense of reverence, my gratitude towards my parents and
member of my family, who has always supported me morally as well as economically.
At last but not least gratitude goes to all of my friends who directly or indirectly helped me to
complete this project report.

RAJNEESH CHANDRA

Place: Nagpur
Date:
 1. INTRODUCTION

Human Resources Management:

Human Resource Management (HRM) is the function within an

organization that focuses on recruitment of, management of, and providing direction
for the people who work in the organization. Human Resource Management can also
be performed by line managers.

Human Resource Management is the organizational function that deals with issues
related to people such as compensation, hiring, performance management,
organization development, safety, wellness, benefits, employee motivation,
communication, administration, and training.

Human resource management (HRM) is the strategic and coherent approach to

the management of an organization's most valued assets - the people working there
who individually and collectively contribute to the achievement of the objectives of
the business.[1] The terms "human resource management" and "human resources"
(HR) have largely replaced the term "personnel management" as a description of the
processes involved in managing people in organizations.[1] In simple words, HRM
means employing people, developing their capacities, utilizing, maintaining and
compensating their services in tune with the job and organizational requirement.
Human Resources Development:

Human Resource Development (HRD) is the framework for helping

employees develops their personal and organizational skills, knowledge, and abilities.
Human Resource Development includes such opportunities as employee training,
employee career development, performance management and
development, coaching, mentoring, succession planning, key employee
identification, tuition assistance, and organization development.
The focus of all aspects of Human Resource Development is on
developing the most superior workforce so that the organization and individual
employees can accomplish their work goals in service to customers.
Human Resource Development can be formal such as in classroom
training, a college course, or an organizational planned change effort. Or, Human
Resource Development can be informal as in employee coaching by a manager.
Healthy organizations believe in Human Resource Development and cover all of
these bases.
Performance Appraisal System:

Performance appraisal refers to all the formal procedures used to evaluate an

individual, his contributions and potential. In other words, it is to plan and measure
the performance of an individual in terms of the requirement of the job or it is a
process of finding out how effective the organization has been at hiring and placing
an employee.
Performance appraisal is a formal system of review and evaluation of individual or
team task performance. While evaluation of team performance is critical when teams
exist in an organization, the focus of performance appraisal in most firms remains on
the individual employees. Regardless of the emphasis, an effective appraisal
evaluates accomplishments and initiates plans for development, goals and objectives.

History of Performance Appraisal

The history of performance appraisal is fairly concise. Appraisal really began with the
Second World War. It was used to assess results.

Dulewicz (1989) says that there is an indispensable human inclination to judge the work
of other people as well as one’s own work.It can thus be said that appraisal is both
unavoidable and universal. Even without the existence of a planned appraisal system, one
can have a tendency and find it natural to evaluate the job performance of another easily
and subjectively.

Performance appraisal was seen in the industry in early 1800. Randell (1994) identified
its use in Robert Owen’s use of “silent monitors” in the cotton mills of Scotland. The
Silent monitors were in terms of blocks of wood with different colours painted on each
visible side and it was hung above each employee’s work station. At the end of the day,
the block was turned so that a particular colour, representing a grade of the employee’s
performance, could be seen by everyone.

(Weise and Buckley, 1998) Subjective evidence indicates that this practice had a
facilitating influence on subsequent behavior.

Spriegel(1962) and Weise and Buckley(1998) affirm that by the early 1950s, 61 per cent
of organizations regularly used performance appraisals, compared with only 15 per cent
immediately after World War II. DeVries et al. (1981) pointed out the primary tool to be
the trait-rating system, which focused on past actions, using a standard, numerical
scoring system to appraise people on the basis of a previously established set of
dimensions. The main tool, used under here was trait rating system.
The concept of Management by Objective (MBO) was first proposed by Peter Drucker in
1954.

Mcgreror then used it in the appraisal process in the year 1957. He suggested that,
employees should be appraised on the basis of short-term goals, rather than traits, which
are jointly set by the employee and the manager. Weise and Buckley (1998) affirm that
this method was very advantageous as it lead to a transformation of a manager’s role
from being a judge to a helper. It also showed that employees’ productivity ultimately
leads to performance. However, when employees’ performance was measured on the
basis of units, then MBO was ineffective. This lead to new development in the appraisal
process and the employees were evaluated on the basis of ‘behaviour based rating’.
Smith and Kendall (1963) designed the first tool to focus on behaviors and it was the
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS).

NEED FOR THE STUDY

Appraising the performance of individuals, groups and organizations is a common

practice of all societies. While in some instances these appraisal processes are
structured and formally sanctioned, in other instances they are an informal and
integral part of daily activities. Consciously of unconsciously evaluate our own
actions from time to time. In social interactions, performance is conducted a
systematic and planned manner to achieve widespread popularity in recent years.
Performance appraisal is essential to understand and improve the employee's
performance through HRD. In fact, performance appraisal is the basis for HRD. It
was viewed performance appraisal was useful to decide upon employee promotion /
transfer salary determination and the like. But the recent developments in human
resources management indicate that performance appraisal is the basis for employee
development. Performance appraisal indicates the level of desired performance level,
level of actual performance and the gap between these two. This gap should be
bridged through human resources development techniques like training executive
development etc.
 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

Performance appraisals provide employees and managers with opportunities to

discuss areas in which employees excel and those in which employees need improvement.
Performance appraisals should be conducted on a regular basis, and they need not be
directly attached to promotion opportunities.

Personal Attention

During a performance appraisal review, a supervisor and an employee discuss the

employee's strengths and weaknesses. This gives the employee individual face time with
the supervisor and a chance to address personal concerns.

Feedback

Employees need to know when their job duties are being fulfilled and when there
are issues with their work performance. Managers should schedule this communication on
a regular basis.

Career Path

Performance appraisals allow employees and supervisors to discuss goals that

must be met to advance within the company. This can include identifying skills that must
be acquired, areas in which one must improve, and educational courses that must be
completed.

Employee Accountability

When employees know there will be regularly scheduled evaluations, they realize
that they are accountable for their job performance.

Communicate Divisional and Company Goals

Besides communicating employees' individual goals, employee appraisals provide

the opportunity for managers to explain organizational goals and the ways in which
employees can participate in the achievement of those goals.

Traditional Methods:
Ranking Method:

It is the oldest and simplest formal systematic method of performance appraisal in which
employee is compared with all others for the purpose of placing order of worth. The
employees are ranked from the highest to the lowest or from the best to the worst.
Paired Comparison:

In this method, each employee is compared with other employees on one- on one basis,
usually based on one trait only. The rater is provided with a bunch of slips each coining pair
of names, the rater puts a tick mark against the employee whom he insiders the better of the
two. The number of times this employee is compared as better with others determines his or
her final ranking.

Grading Method:

In this method, certain categories of worth are established in advance and carefully defined.
There can be three categories established for employees: outstanding, satisfactory and
unsatisfactory. There can be more than three grades. Employee performance is compared
with grade definitions. The employee is, then, allocated to the grade that best describes his or
her performance.

Forced Distribution Method:

This method was evolved by Tiffen to eliminate the central tendency of rating most of the
employees at a higher end of the scale. The method assumes that employees’ performance
level confirms to a normal statistical distribution i.e., 10,20,40,20 and 10 per cent. This is
useful for rating a large number of employees’ job performance and promo ability. It tends to
eliminate or reduce bias.

Forced-Choice Method:
The forced-choice method is developed by J. P. Guilford. It contains a series of groups of
statements, and rater rates how effectively a statement describes each individual being
evaluated. Common method of forced-choice method contains two statements, both positive
and negative.

Check-List Method:
The basic purpose of utilizing check-list method is to ease the evaluation burden upon the
rater. In this method, a series of statements, i.e., questions with their answers in ‘yes’ or ‘no’
are prepared by the HR department (see Figure 28-2). The check-list is, then, presented to the
rater to tick appropriate answers relevant to the appraisee. Each question carries a weight-age
in relationship to their importance.
Critical Incidents Method:
In this method, the rater focuses his or her attention on those key or critical behaviours that
make the difference between performing a job in a noteworthy manner (effectively or
ineffectively). There are three steps involved in appraising employees using this method.

Graphic Rating Scale Method:

The graphic rating scale is one of the most popular and simplest techniques for appraising
performance. It is also known as linear rating scale. In this method, the printed appraisal form
is used to appraise each employee.

Essay Method:
Essay method is the simplest one among various appraisal methods available. In this method,
the rater writes a narrative description on an employee’s strengths, weaknesses, past
performance, potential and suggestions for improvement. Its positive point is that it is simple
in use. It does not require complex formats and extensive/specific training to complete it.

Field Review Method:

When there is a reason to suspect rater’s biasedness or his or her rating appears to be quite
higher than others, these are neutralised with the help of a review process. The review
process is usually conducted by the personnel officer in the HR department.

Confidential Report:
It is the traditional way of appraising employees mainly in the Government Departments.
Evaluation is made by the immediate boss or supervisor for giving effect to promotion and
transfer. Usually a structured format is devised to collect information on employee’s strength
weakness, intelligence, attitude, character, attendance, discipline, etc. report.

Modern Methods:

Management by Objectives (MBO):

Most of the traditional methods of performance appraisal are subject to the antagonistic
judgments of the raters. It was to overcome this problem; Peter F. Drucker propounded a new
concept, namely, management by objectives (MBO) way back in 1954 in his book.
Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS):
The problem of judgmental performance evaluation inherent in the traditional methods of
performance evaluation led to some organisations to go for objective evaluation by
developing a technique known as “Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)” around
1960s. BARS are descriptions of various degrees of behaviour with regard to a specific
performance dimension.

360 – Degree Appraisal:

Yet another method used to appraise the employee’s performance is 360 – degree appraisal.
This method was first developed and formally used by General Electric Company of USA in
1992. Then, it travelled to other countries including India. In India, companies like Reliance
Industries, Wipro Corporation, Infosys Technologies, Thermax, Thomas Cook etc., have been
using this method for appraising the performance of their employees. This feedback based
method is generally used for ascertaining training and development requirements, rather than
for pay increases.

Cost Accounting Method:

This method evaluates an employee’s performance from the monetary benefits the employee
yields to his/her organisation. This is ascertained by establishing a relationship between the
costs involved in retaining the employee, and the benefits an organisation derives from
Him/her.
 COMPANY PROFILE

Morepen Laboratories Limited (MLI) is an Indian pharmaceutical company with its

headquarters in New Delhi; India. Morepen was established in 1984 and went public in 1993.
The company's manufactures and sells Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), Home
Diagnostics and Finished Formulations to 50-plus countries.
Some things will always remain unfettered. Like sunshine and air, like suffering and joy, like
sharing and caring. Some things will never recognize the confines of space and time. Like
human Endeavour and enterprise, like the desire to touch life. At Morepen, we are taking our
expertise and experience in Wellness to new countries and new people with an increasing
focus on global exports. And in doing so, our spirit of caring is crossing boundaries.
Morepen’s state-of-art manufacturing facility in the picturesque environs of Baddi,
Himanchal Pradesh comprises a scientifically integrated complex of 10 plants, each with a
specific product profile. The company’s extensive R&D facilities and factories are manned
by a dedicated team of professionals who ensure stringent quality standards. Today Morepen
is exporting products to several countries round the global.

The first Morepen manufacturing plant was set up on the foothills of the Himalayas in the
idyllic surroundings of Parwanoo. The large and spread out facility is USFDA approved for
manufacture of Loratadine, an anti-allergy drug – internationally known as Claritin. Today,
its benchmark standards make it the perfect setting for producing advances molecules.
Busy lifestyles and increasing work pressures in everyday urban life have made it imperative
to make self-monitoring diagnostic equipment a part of every household. Morepen has tied up
with international majors in this category and has brought to India a range of products that
help people monitor their health on a day-today basis and thereby seek remedies well in time.

The brand name of Dr. Morepen has a front-ranking presence in the Wellness category. Its
spectrum of popular OTC products, amongst which Burnol, Lemolate, Sat Isabgol and
many more are undisputably household names, have spread relief and cheer in many homes
and lives.
1. Company History

Established in 1984 by Mr. KB Suri, Morepen Laboratories Limited started off as a pure API
manufacturer. In 1985, it commenced the production of bulk drugs and over the years it
moved up from manufacturing simple semi-synthetic products to products with complex
multi stage synthesis.

The company went public in 1993. After the demise of founder chairman Mr. KB Suri in
2000, Mr. Sushil Suri took over the reins of the company.

API Business
Application programming interface
Loratadine, on account of its deep penetration (80% market share) in US generics market, has
been a major source of the revenue for the API business. The other important contributor to
the API business is Sultamicillin Tosylate and Sultamicillin Base. The main markets for
Sultamicillin are Turkey and Singapore.
The company is engaged in production of Fexofenadine*, ‘Atorvastatin’ and ‘Montelukast’
API. Cisapride and Zafirlukast have also been
The company has expanded the business by moving into production of intermediates both for,
regulated and free markets. The company is deriving good business from reputed customers
like Teva, Chemo, DRL and Matrix for Montelukast, Carvedilol and Loratadine

Intermediates
The company is planning for USFDA certification for its Baddi plant, and expects to get high
margin business from regulated markets.

*Fexofenadine is an antihistamine used to relieve allergy symptoms such as watery eyes,

runny nose, itching eyes/nose, sneezing, hives, and itching. It works by blocking a certain
natural substance (histamine) that your body makes during an allergic reaction.

*Atorvastatin is used along with a proper diet to help lower "bad" cholesterol and fats (such
as LDL, triglycerides) and raise "good" cholesterol (HDL) in the blood. It belongs to a group
of drugs known as "statins." It works by reducing the amount of cholesterol made by
the liver. Lowering "bad" cholesterol and triglycerides and raising "good" cholesterol
decreases the risk of heart disease and helps prevent strokes and heart attacks.

2. MANAGEMENT TEAM

COMPANY DETAILS
CORPORATE OFFICE REGISTERED OFFICE
Morepen Laboratories Ltd. Morepen Laboratories Ltd.
Morepen Village
409, Antriksh Bhawan
Nalagarh Road
22 Kasturba Gandhi Marg Near Baddi, District Solan
Himachal Pradesh - 173220
New Delhi - 110 001
India
India
Website: http://www.morepen.com/
Tel: +91-11-23324443, 23712025, 9818305894
Fax: +91-11-2.13722422
Email: corporate@morepen.com
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Chairman and Managing Director- Mr. Sushil Suri
 Independent Director - Manoj Joshi
 Independent Director - Sukhcharan Singh
 Independent Director - Bhupender Raj Wadhwa
 Whole-time Director - Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha
 Director - Ms. Anju Suri

3. Logo of Company

4. BUSINESS SEGMENT / Products and services offered

Products in Equipment Category

 BLOOD PRESSOR MONITORS
 BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORS
 PULSE OXIMETER
 HOT WATER BOTTLES
 MASSAGERS &HEAT THERAPY
 NEBULIZERS
 THERMOMETER
 VAPORIZER
 WEIHING SCALES
 AIR MATTRESS
 ADULT DIAPER
 INSTANT DRY UNDER MAT
 NON WOVEN BREATHABLE TAPE
 URINE PREGNANCY TEST
Dr.Morepen’s Major Products in Oil emulsion/ Ointment Category

 Burnol
 Lemolate-Cold Relief
 Lemolate –Cough Syrup
 Fibre-X
 QuickChek
 Face Wash
 Intch Beat
 Kool Hair Oil

Dr.Morepen’s Major Medicus / Drugs Category

 Cardivascular & hematoietic System

 Respiratory System
 Central Nervous System
 Musculo-Skeletal System
 Hormones
 Anti-Infectives (system)
 Genito-urinary System
 Endocrine & metabolic system
 Vitamins & Minerals
 Allergy & Immune system
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Cummings (1973)1 in an article titled, “A Field Experimental Study of the Effects of Two
Performance Appraisal Systems”, reported the results of a field experiment designed to test
the effects of manipulating several elements of an operative level performance appraisal
system. First, the multipurposive nature of appraisal in formal organizations is discussed.
This is followed by a brief overview of the literature on performance appraisal. The design
and results of the study at hand are then discussed.

Patton (1973)2 in his paper on “Does performance appraisal work?” states that performance
appraisal can be a powerful force for performance improvement at both the individual and the
corporate level, but few companies in the US and even fewer in Europe have learned to tap its
full potential. Examining the differences between European and US performance appraisal
practices, the author finds that some European companies have more than caught up with
their American counterparts. He offers guidelines to overcome some difficulties prevalent on
both sides of the Atlantic.

Randell (1973)3 in his paper titled ““Performance appraisal: purposes, practices and
conflicts”, discusses the collection of information from and about people at work. It attempts
to structure the field, define key problems, expose sources of conflict and point the way to
resolving major difficulties.

Taylor and Wilsted (1974)4 in their article titled “Capturing Judgment Policies: A Field
Study of Performance Appraisal” used mathematical models of judgment policy for
evaluating 625 performance reports during a single rating cycle. Linear and nonlinear
analyses are used to describe the cues most important in determining the overall ratings. In
addition, performance rating policy is compared with stated policy for each of the 40 raters.
Bedeian (1976)5 in his paper titled “Rater Characteristics Affecting the Validity of
Performance Appraisals” states that the task of developing effective performance appraisal
systems is one of the most preferred contemporary problems of personnel administration. An
abundance of literature is available detailing the problems and difficulties inherent in
subordinate appraisals. Numerous studies have made suggestions for rating format and
content changes. Some have even suggested the elimination of appraisal. More recently, an
identifiable body of knowledge which seriously casts doubt on the use of supervisor’s
judgment in evaluating employee performance has begun to emerge. The purpose of this
paper is to explore this emerging body of knowledge and to examine its ramifications for
performance appraisal.
Allinson (1977)6 in his paper describes a study of the effects of a training course on
performance appraisal interviewing. Managers who had attended the course were asked, by
means of a postal questionnaire, to compare their pre-training and post-training interviewing
performances. There were three important findings. First, that the trainees had improved on
almost every aspect of appraisal interviewing; secondly, it is not just the skill of interviewing
which is important, but also an understanding of the role of performance appraisal; and
finally, managers in mid-career may have the most to gain from training of this type.
Decotiis and Petit (1978)7 in their article titled, “The Performance Appraisal Process: A
Model and Some Testable Propositions”, present a literature-based model of the determinants
of the accuracy of performance ratings. The model indicates that the major determinants of
accuracy are: (a) rater motivation; (b) rater ability; and (c) availability of appropriate
judgmental norms. Several propositions and suggestions for further research are derived from
the components of the model

Kleiman and Durham (1981)9 in their article titled, “Performance Appraisal, Promotion and
the Courts: A Critical Review”, reviewed twenty three Title VII court cases in order to
determine the standards set by the courts in their assessment of performance appraisal
systems when used as the basis for promotion decisions. The topics covered were adverse
impact determination, the courts' adjudication strategy, and the evidence needed to justify the
performance appraisal procedures. Among the major findings were the courts': (1) failure to
adhere to the “applicant flow technique” of adverse impact determination, (2) interest in
assessing performance appraisal systems regardless of their adverse impact, (3) ignorance
regarding acceptable validation procedures, and (4) focus on objectivity in lieu of validity.
The discussion offered suggestions to employers for developing a professionally sound and
legally defensible appraisal system.

Bretz, Milkovich and Read (1992)25 in their article titled, “The Current State of Performance
Appraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications” state that on the
surface, it is not readily apparent how some performance appraisal research issues inform
performance appraisal practice. Because performance appraisal is an applied topic, it is useful
to periodically consider the current state of performance research and its relation to
performance appraisal practice. This review examines the performance appraisal literature
published in both academic and practitioner outlets between 1985 and 1990, briefly discusses
the current state of performance appraisal practice, highlights the juxtaposition of research
and practice, and suggests directions for further research.

Maroney and Buckley (1992)26 in their article titled, “Does research in performance
appraisal influence the practice of performance appraisal: regretfully not!” state that
thousands of studies on performance appraisal (PA) exist in both the academic and
practitioner literatures. The intended purpose of many of these works is to somehow link PA
to performance; i.e., to utilize the process as a performance-enhancing instrument. Employee
perceptions of PA are vital to the acceptance of PA validity, and must be examined prior to
any further extension of the process; yet few studies have shown credence to this premise.
This paper examines employee perceptions and their implicit consequences, following such
aspects of PA as perceived accuracy, feedback, participation, rater training, rewards, and
others. The working market's utilization of many proven PA components is dismal; we
discuss rater training and diary-keeping as two plausible factors for improving PA accuracy,
fairness, and the perceptions of same are discussed. Further, it is suggested that practitioners
must fully sponsor the results of the vast PA research efforts to improve the process as a
prerequisite to improving performance.

Woehr and Huffcutt (1994)28 in their article titled, “Rater training for performance appraisal:
A quantitative review” state that a substantial amount of research in the performance
appraisal literature has focused on rater training as a means of improving performance
ratings. Unfortunately the value of this research is somewhat equivocated by a lack of
organization and integration. The present study provides an integration and a quantitative
review of the rater training literature. A general framework for the evaluation of rater training
is presented in terms of four rating training strategies (rater error training, performance
dimension training, frame-ofreference training, and behavioural observation training) and
four dependent measures (halo, leniency, rating accuracy and observational accuracy).
Finally, a meta analytic review is presented to assess the effectiveness of the rater training
strategies across the four dependent measures

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TODAY

Performance Appraisal still plays a huge part in organizations today. A report carried out by
the CIPD in 2009 found that 81.3% of organizations surveyed were carrying out performance
appraisal in their organization as part of their performance management. In recent years,
performance appraisals have been used in organizations for numerous reasons, as opposed to
the historical method it was used for, making administrative decisions. According to
Cleveland, Murphy & Williams (1989) there are four main uses for Performance Appraisal in
organizations today. These are Between Individual Comparisons, Within Individuals
Comparisons, Systems maintenance and Documentation.
Between individuals relates to comparison of individuals in terms of performance, Within
Individuals concentrates on identifying and developing individuals strengths and weaknesses.
Systems Maintenance can mean using Performance Appraisal as a source to link company
procedures and strategy with the performance of employeesand the goals that they have
achieved and are working toward. Linking Performance Appraisal to the business goals of the
company has been seen as an innovative way of focusing employees’ actions to the priorities
of the business. The purpose of Documentation is the use of performance appraisal to
document or justify personnel decisions and ensure they are meeting legal requirements
(Cleveland et al, 1989; Wiese & Buckley, 1998).
Throughout the vast amount of journal articles and research on performance appraisal, there
is a substantial view that while performance appraisal seems like a great tool and should be of
huge benefit to every organization, they can be moderately ineffective and so have taken a lot
of criticism. Lawler (2012) discusses how a lot of literature poses the idea of dismissing
performance appraisal completely, but he believes that Performance Appraisal is a vital
procedure for effective talent management. He recommends that the way forward for
Performance Appraisal is not to eliminate it but to work on making it an effective tool. ‘The
key is to make them part of a complete performance management system, which includes
goal setting, development, compensation actions, performance feedback and a goals based
appraisal of performance’ (Lawler, 2012).
 RESEARCH METHODLOGY

Research Methodology is a systematic way to solve the problem; it is the science to study is
how the research is too carried out essentially the procedure by which searcher goes about
their work describing, explaining, predicting phenomena are called as Research
Methodology. In, short the search for knowledge through the objective and systematic
method of finding the solution through a problem is called research.

Definition °

“A research is a careful investigation or enquiry especially through such for new fact to any
branch of knowledge"

“Research is a structural inquiry that utilizes acceptable scientific methodology to solve

problem and creates new knowledge that is generally applicable”

Methods of Collection of Data

Primary Data - Primary data is that type of data which is collected for the first time and for
the specific purpose of research. In simple words this data does not prevail to be collected
unless the need is desired for it.

Secondary data - Secondary data is the form of data which is already present in the market
and was 'collected by some other person for some different purpose. Any form of data which
is collected and used immediately becomes data for others. The literature, related to the
research topic. 1) Book related of fundamental analysis and other fundamental analysis. 2)
Journals and periodicals for the comprehensive's opinion of eminent and Magazines and other
house journals of the intelligent writer/ author.
 RATIONALE BEHIND THE STUDY
Performance Appraisal is the important aspect in the organization to evaluate the
employee’s performance. It helps in understanding the employees work culture,
involvement, and satisfaction. It helps the organization in deciding employee’s
promotion, transfer, incentives, and pay increase.
India has become one of the largest and fastest growing economies in the world and a
dynamic growth has been seen in manufacturing and service sector. Both the sectors
contribute significantly in accelerating the national income and providing the job
opportunities to the people. In the scenario of rapid expansion in both the sectors, effective
and efficient workforce is the foremost requirement in any organization. Effectiveness of the
employees is a output for the organization and can be determined through various factors like
job performance, employee productivity, organization commitment of employees, motivation,
job satisfaction, Team spirit and many more factors. Four factors namely Job Performance,
Job Satisfaction, Organization Commitment and Motivation are considered for determining
employee effectiveness in the present study. Emotions which were considered as
counterproductive before in organizational context has gained much importance now and
Emotional intelligence is considered as one of the most important skill apart from technical
and traditional Intelligence skill (IQ) for the management while hiring the workforce for the
organization. In today’s dynamic and complex business scenario, employees who are
emotionally intelligent can recognize and manage their own emotions as well as of the others
and can respond wisely according to the situation and their decision making, problem
solving, emotional balancing, self control, interpersonal relationship level, social relations
and creative abilities are more efficient. They can understand the organizational requirements
and perform more effectively and sincerely as the good performers to achieve the decided
organizational objectives. So emotional intelligence plays a vital role in enhancing the
employee effectiveness by making them emotionally stable, balanced and socially aware.

LIMITATION
1. Employees could quit based on unfair results.

2. Fabricated or misleading information can affect the review

OBJECTIVE
1. To understand the method on performance appraisal used at the organization.
2. To know how the employees feel towards existing system of appraisal
3. To determine the satisfaction level of employees towards appraisal system
4. To understand the methods used to train the appraisers before conducting the
appraisal
 DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

Q1. Gender
 Male
 Female
Q2. Age:
 20 – 30 years
 30 – 40 years
 Above 40
Q3. Department:

 HR
 ACCOUNT
 OPARETION
 R&D
 MARKETING
 PURCHASE
Q4. Monthly Income: (in Rs.)
 Below 10000
 10000 to 20000
 20000 to 30000
 30000 to 40000
 40000 above
Q6. Year of service:
 Up to 2 years
 2 -6 years
 6- 10 years
 10 year above
 Q.7 Do you think that performance of employees improve after process of
performance appraisal?
 Yes
 No

Interpretation
84% of the employees think it will helpful for the employees to improve the performance
after the process of performance appraisal and 16% of the employees think it is not the useful
process to improve performance.
 Q8. Do you think performance appraisal improves motivation and job Satisfaction?
 Yes
 No

Interpretation: According to 82% respondents performance appraisal improves motivation

and job Satisfaction. And the remaining 18% believes that performance appraisal do not
improve motivation and job Satisfaction. As per performance appraisal feedback employees
are motivated by the performance appraisal.
Q9. Do you think performance appraisal helps to change behavior of Employees?
Yes
No

Interepreation

As per the perfomance appraisal review helps to change behavior of Employees for their
work. Performance appraisal helps to find out the strength and weakness of employees and it
is beneficial for the organization.
Q 10. In your opinion Performance Appraisal system of your organization is related to which
of the following?
 Yes
 No

Interpretation: According to the respondents Performance Appraisal system of their

organization is 44% related to retention, 22% related to recruitment system, 22% to
organizational culture and the remaining 12% is related to motivation.
Q 11. In your Opinion Performance Appraisal is?

Interpretation: In the Opinion of respondents Performance Appraisal is 52% evaluation of

employees, 22% job satisfaction, 20% promotion of employees and 6% motivation.
Q 12. Which method of performance appraisal is implemented in the organization?

Interpretation: According to the respondents method of performance appraisal implemented

in their organization are based on 49% grading, 28.6% merit, 16.3% 360 degree, 2% MBO
and 4.1% others.
Q 13. Do you receive any increment in your salary after performance Appraisal?

Interpretation: According to the respondents 92% respondents believe that increment in their
salary has increased after performance Appraisal and the rest 8% said that even after
performance appraisal their salaries were not incremented.
Q 14 Is there any conflict arise between employees after performance appraisal is made?

Interpretation: Out of the 50 respondents 58% said that sometimes conflict arise between
employees after performance appraisal is made, 34% said that their occurs conflict more
often between employees after performance appraisal is made and 8% of the total
respondents said that there occurred no conflicts after performance appraisal is made.
Q 15. Who rates the performance?

Interpretation: According to the total 50 respondents 32% of them said that their subordinates
rates the performance of the employees, 32% said their superiors do rate the performance. In
the rest 22% case clients as well as 14% said that all together rates the performance of the
employees.
Q 16. On what basis performance appraisal is made?

Interpretation: According to the 40% of total respondents performance appraisal is made

based on the total output, 34% is made on behavioral efficiency and 26% responded that
performance appraisal is made based on both the methods i.e. total output as well as
behavioral efficiency.
Q 17. Performance appraisal system is needed in an organization?

Interpretation: According to the total 50 respondents 44% strongly agreed that performance
appraisal system is needed in their organization, 38% agreed to this whereas 2% respondents
disagreed to this statement and remaining 16% reacted neutral to this question.
Q 18. How would you rate the Performance Appraisal method in your organization?

Interpretation: According to the total respondents they rate the Performance Appraisal
method in their organization as follows:
38% of the total respondents said it was easy, 38% said the method is complicated, 20% said
the method was efficient and the remaining 4% said that it was inefficient.
Q 19 In your opinion, what does your organization strive to achieve through Performance
Appraisal?

Interpretation: Based on the responds of the total respondents it was found that maximum
responded that their organization strive to achieve training and development needs through
Performance appraisal followed by upgrading and promotion needs.
Q.20. Are the targets based on?

Interpretation: According the 68% of total respondents they believe that the targets were
based on individual needs, 26% said that the targets were based on business needs and the
rest 6% said that the targets were based on needs other than individual and business needs.
Q 21. STUDY FACTORS.

I -Performance appraisal system is needed in organization.

Interpretation: According to the 38% of the total respondents strongly agreed that
performance appraisal system is needed in their organization 48% of the total respondents
agreed that performance appraisal system is needed in their organization, whereas remaining
14% responded neutral.
ii- Satisfied with the existing performance appraisal system.

Interpretation: According to the total responds 16% strongly agreed, 40% agreed that they are
satisfied with existing performance appraisal system in their organization. 42% responded
neutral whereas remaining 2% disagreed to this.
iii-The performance of the organization is assessed by self, superior or consultant.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 24% strongly agreed whereas 34% agreed
that the performance of the organization is assessed by self, superior or consultant.
IV – The performance appraisal helps to win cooperation and team work.

Interpretation: Based on the responds the performance appraisal helps to win cooperation and
team work is strongly agreed by 18% respondents. 44% agreed to this, 36% reacted neutral
whereas 2% disagreed.
V- The performance appraisal is helpful in reducing grievance among the employees.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 24% strongly agreed whereas 44% agreed
that performance appraisal is helpful in reducing grievance among the employees.
VI- The performance appraisal is helpful for improving personnel skill.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 16% strongly agreed whereas 48% agreed
that performance appraisal is helpful for improving personnel skill. 34% responded neutral
whereas 2% strongly disagreed to this.
VII- Training programmers are effective for individual and organization development

Interpretation: According to the total respondents training programmes are effective for
individual and organization development to which 26% strongly agreed, 48% agreed whereas
26% responded neutral.
VIII- The performance ratings were done periodically.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 22% strongly agreed and 40% agreed that
performance ratings were done periodically in their organization.
IV- The performance appraisal system helps to identify the strength and weakness of the
employee.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 30% strongly agreed and 38% agreed that
performance appraisal system helps to identify the strength and weakness of the employee.
X- The performance rating is helpful for the management to provide employee counseling.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 28% strongly agreed that performance
rating is helpful for the management to provide employee counseling
21.11- Promotion is purely based on performance appraisal.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 20% strongly agreed whereas 48% agreed
that promotion is purely based on performance appraisal. Whereas 2% disagreed with this.
21.12- Management fixes salary through the performance rating.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 20% strongly agreed whereas 48% agreed
that management fixes salary through the performance rating.

21.13-Transfer, demotion, suspension and dismissal is based on performance appraisal.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 16% strongly agreed and 44% agreed that
transfer, demotion, suspension and dismissal is based on performance appraisal whereas 40%
reacted neutral.
21.14- The desired target of the organization is achieved through the performance appraisal.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 24% strongly agreed and 50% agreed that
the desired target of the organization is achieved through the performance appraisal whereas
26% reacted neutral.
21.15- Have a separate committee to review the performance appraisal result.

Interpretation: According to the total respondents 18% strongly agreed and 54% agreed that
they should have a separate committee to review the performance appraisal result. Whereas
28% reacted neutral.

FINDINGS:
 84% of the employees think it will helpful for the employees to improve the
performance after the process of performance appraisal
 According to 82% respondent’s performance appraisal improves motivation and
job Satisfaction.
 As per the perfomance appraisal review helps to change behaviour of Employees
for their work.
 According to the respondents Performance Appraisal system of their organization
is 44% related to retention.
 : In the Opinion of respondents Performance Appraisal is 52% evaluation of
employees, 22% job satisfaction, 20% promotion of employees.
 According to the respondent’s method of performance appraisal implemented in
their organization are based on 49% grading.
 According to the respondents 92% respondents believe that increment in their
salary has increased after performance Appraisal.
 Out of the 50 respondents 58% said that sometimes conflict arise between
employees after performance appraisal is made.
 According to the total 50 respondents 32% of them said that their subordinates
rates the performance of the employees, 32% said their superiors do rate the
performance.
 According to the 40% of total respondents performance appraisal is made based
on the total output, 34% is made on behavioural efficiency and 26% responded
that performance appraisal is made based on both the methods i.e. total output as
well as behavioural efficiency.
 According to the total 50 respondents 44% strongly agreed that performance
appraisal system is needed in their organization.
 According to the total respondents they rate the Performance Appraisal method in
their organization as follows:
 38% of the total respondents said it was easy, 38% said the method is
complicated, 20% said the method was efficient and the remaining 4% said that it
was inefficient.
 Based on the responds of the total respondents it was found that maximum
responded that their organization strive to achieve training and development
needs through Performance appraisal followed by upgrading and promotion
needs.
 According the 68% of total respondents they believe that the targets were based
on individual needs, 26% said that the targets were based on business needs.
 According to the 38% of the total respondents strongly agreed that performance
appraisal system is needed in their organization.
 According to the total responds 16% strongly agreed, 40% agreed that they are
satisfied with existing performance appraisal system in their organization.
 According to the total respondents 24% strongly agreed whereas 34% agreed that
the performance of the organization is assessed by self, superior or consultant.
  Based on the responds the performance appraisal helps to win cooperation and
team work is strongly agreed 18% respondents. 44% agreed to this.
 According to the total respondents 24% strongly agreed whereas 44% agreed that
performance appraisal is helpful in reducing grievance among the employees.
 According to the total respondents 16% strongly agreed whereas 48% agreed that
performance appraisal is helpful for improving personnel skill.
 According to the total respondents training programmes are effective for
individual and organization development to which 26% strongly agreed, 48%
agreed whereas 26% responded neutral.
 According to the total respondents 22% strongly agreed and 40% agreed that
performance ratings were done periodically in their organization.
 According to the total respondents 30% strongly agreed and 38% agreed that
performance appraisal system helps to identify the strength and weakness of the
employee.
 According to the total respondents 28% strongly agreed that performance rating is
helpful for the management to provide employee counseling
 According to the total respondents 20% strongly agreed whereas 48% agreed that
promotion is purely based on performance appraisal.
 According to the total respondents 20% strongly agreed whereas 48% agreed that
management fixes salary through the performance rating.
 According to the total respondents 16% strongly agreed and 44% agreed that
transfer, demotion, suspension and dismissal is based on performance appraisal
whereas 40% reacted neutral.
 According to the total respondents 18% strongly agreed and 54% agreed that they
should have a separate committee to review the performance appraisal result.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCLUSION