Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
West Bengal, India and the world's largest coal miner with revenue exceeding 602.45 billion (FY2010-11).[2][3] It was formerly owned entirely by the Union Government of India, under the administrative control of the Ministry of Coal. It is involved in coal mining and production industry. In April 2011, CIL was conferred the Maharatna status by the Union Government of India [4] and ranked as one of India's most valuable company by market value. In 2010, CIL's initial public offering (IPO) got subscribed 15.28 times, collecting a record over 2.4 trillionthe highest IPO subscription so far.[5] On the first day of its listing on the Sensex, its stock closed 40% higher than IPO price.[6] It is India's largest ever public offer from Coal India Ltd. to raise up to 15,000 crore (US$2.99 billion).[7] It is currently 90% owned by the Government of India with the remaining 10% owned by the public.
Object 1
Coal India Limited was formed in 1973 as Coal Mines Authority Limited. In 1975 it was changed to Coal India Limited as a holding company with five subsidiaries: Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL)(Dhanbad, Jharkhand) Central Coalfields Limited (CCL)(Ranchi, Jharkhand) Western Coalfields Limited (WCL)(Nagpur region) Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL)(Sanctoria, Asansol, West Bengal) Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDIL)(Ranchi, Jharkhand)
In 1985 two more subsidiaries were added: South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL)(Bilaspur) Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli (NCL,Singrauli) In 1992 one more subsidiary added: Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) (Sambalpur) One International Subsidiary Coal India Africana Limitada (CIAL) (Mozambique) Two indirect subsidiaries (held through our subsidiary, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited) MJSJ Coal Limited MNH Shakti Limited The Indian Institute of Coal Management (IICM) at Ranchi operates under Coal India Limited and imparts multi disciplinary management development programs executives. In April 2012, S Narsing Rao is expected to take over as the Coal India Chief.[1] [8]
NSE: COALINDIA BSE SENSEX Constituent Industry Mining Founded 1975 Headquarters Kolkata,West Bengal, India Area served India Key people Zohra Chatterji(Chairman & MD) Products Coal, Bituminus Revenue 602.45 billion (US$12.02 billion) (2010-11) Profit 108.67 billion (US$2.17 billion) (2010-11) Employees 383,347 (April 2011)
Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited (CIL), an undertaking of the Government of India. CCL manages the nationalized coal mines of the Coal Mines Authority, Central division. The registered and corporate office is at Darbhanga House, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
It presently has 63 mines (26 underground, 37 open cast) in areas of East Bokaro, West Bokaro, North Karanpur, South Karanpur, Ramgarh and Giridih. Their facilities include seven coal preparation plants, three for non-coking coal and four for medium coking coal. They earned their Mini Ratna status in 2007 Industry Coal Founded 1st November 1975 Headquarters Ranchi, Jharkhand Key people Ranjan Kumar Saha, CMD Products net_income = INR 965.79 Crore (2010) Employees 53,286 (31.07.2010) Performance Appraisal Performance appraisal is the process of obtaining, analyzing and recording information about the relative worth of an employee. The focus of the performance appraisal is measuring and improving the actual performance of the employee and also the future potential of the employee. Its aim is to measure what an employee does. According to Flippo, a prominent personality in the field of Human resources, "performance appraisal is the systematic, periodic and an impartial rating of an employees excellence in the matters pertaining to his present job and his potential for a better job." Performance appraisal is a systematic way of reviewing and assessing the performance of an employee during a given period of time and planning for his future. It is a powerful tool to calibrate, refine and reward the performance of the employee. It helps to analyze his achievements and evaluate his contribution towards the achievements of the overall organizational goals. By focusing the attention on performance, performance appraisal goes to the heart of personnel management and reflects the management's interest in the progress of the employees.
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The first step in the process of performance appraisal is the setting up of the standards which will be used to as the base to compare the actual performance of the employees. This step requires setting the criteria to judge the performance of the employees as successful or unsuccessful and the degrees of their contribution to the organizational goals and objectives. The standards set should be clear, easily understandable and in measurable terms. In case the performance of the employee cannot be measured, great care should be taken to describe the standards. COMMUNICATING THE STANDARDS Once set, it is the responsibility of the management to communicate the standards to all the employees of the organization. The employees should be informed and the standards should be clearly explained to the. This will help them to understand their roles and to know what exactly is expected from them. The standards should also be communicated to the appraisers or the evaluators and if required, the standards can also be modified at this stage itself according to the relevant feedback from the employees or the evaluators.
MEASURING THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE The most difficult part of the Performance appraisal process is measuring the actual performance of the employees that is the work done by the employees during the specified period of time. It is a continuous process which involves monitoring the performance throughout the year. This stage requires the careful selection of the appropriate techniques of measurement, taking care that personal bias does not affect the outcome of the process and providing assistance rather than interfering in an employees work. COMPARING THE ACTUAL WITH THE DESIRED PERFORMANCE The actual performance is compared with the desired or the standard performance. The comparison tells the deviations in the performance of the employees from the standards set. The result can show the actual performance being more than the desired performance or, the actual performance being less than the desired performance depicting a negative deviation in the organizational performance. It includes recalling, evaluating and analysis of data related to the employees performance. DISCUSSING RESULTS The result of the appraisal is communicated and discussed with the employees on one-to-one basis. The focus of this discussion is on communication and listening. The results, the problems and the possible solutions are discussed with the aim of problem solving and reaching consensus. The feedback should be given with a positive attitude as this can have an effect on the employees future performance. The purpose of the meeting should be to solve the problems faced and motivate the employees to perform better. DECISION MAKING The last step of the process is to take decisions which can be taken either to improve the performance
of the employees, take the required corrective actions, or the related HR decisions like rewards, promotions, demotions, transfers etc.
management. The performance data to be considered for evaluation should be carefully selected. For the purpose of evaluation, the criteria selected should be in quantifiable or measurable terms Create a rating instrument The purpose of the Performance appraisal process is to judge the performance of the employees rather than the employee. The focus of the system should be on the development of the employees of the organization. Lack of competence Top management should choose the raters or the evaluators carefully. They should have the required expertise and the knowledge to decide the criteria accurately. They should have the experience and the necessary training to carry out the appraisal process objectively. Errors in rating and evaluation Many errors based on the personal bias like stereotyping, halo effect (i.e. one trait influencing the evaluators rating for all other traits) etc. may creep in the appraisal process. Therefore the rater should exercise objectivity and fairness in evaluating and rating the performance of the employees. Resistance The appraisal process may face resistance from the employees and the trade unions for the fear of negative ratings. Therefore, the employees should be communicated and clearly explained the purpose as well the process of appraisal. The standards should be clearly communicated and every employee should be made aware that what exactly is expected from him/her.
According to a recent survey, the percentage of organisations (out of the total organisations surveyed i.e. 50) using performance appraisal for the various purposes are as shown in the diagram below:
The most significant reasons of using Performance appraisal are: Making payroll and compensation decisions 80% Training and development needs 71% Identifying the gaps in desired and actual performance and its cause 76% Deciding future goals and course of action 42% Promotions, demotions and transfers 49% Other purposes 6% (including job analysis and providing superior support, assistance and counseling)
developmental in nature. Performance appraisal is also closely linked to other HR processes like helps to identify the training and development needs, promotions, demotions, changes in the compensation etc. A feedback communicated in a positive manner goes a long way to motivate the employees and helps to identify individual career developmental plans. Based on the evaluation, employees can develop their career goals, achieve new levels of competencies and chart their career progression. Performance appraisal encourages employees to reinforce their strengths and overcome their weaknesses.
If no improvement takes place, inform the human resources or your superior about the problem. Q. Should the review be confidential? A. The Individual performance reviews should be kept confidential and should not be accessible to other employees. They should also be stored at a safe place with limited access. Outdated reviews should be destroyed. The appraisal can also be kept as a part of the HR records of the employee.
Performance appraisal
A performance appraisal (PA) or performance evaluation[1] is a systematic and periodic process that assesses an individual employees job performance and productivity in relation to certain preestablished criteria and organizational objectives.[2][3] Other aspects of individual employees are considered as well, such as organizational citizenship behavior,[4] accomplishments, potential for future improvement, strengths and weaknesses, etc. [2][5] To collect PA data, there are three main methods: objective production, personnel, and judgmental evaluation. Judgmental evaluations are the most commonly used with a large variety of evaluation methods.[1] A PA is typically conducted annually.[6] The interview could function as providing feedback to employees, counseling and developing employees, and conveying and discussing compensation, job status, or disciplinary decisions.[6] PA is often included in performance management systems. Performance management systems are employed to manage and align" all of an organization's resources in order to achieve highest possible performance.[1] How performance is managed in an organization determines to a large extent the success or failure of the organization. Therefore, improving PA for everyone should be among the highest priorities of contemporary organizations.[7] Some applications of PA are performance improvement, promotions, termination, test validation, and more.[8] While there many potential benefits of PA, there are also some potential drawbacks. For example, PA can help facilitate management-employee communication; however, PA may result in legal issues if not executed appropriately[9][1] as many employees tend to be unsatisfied with the PA process.[10] PAs created in and determined as useful in the United States are not necessarily able to be transferable cross-culturally.[11]
Enhancement of employee focus through promoting trust: behaviors, thoughts, and/or issues may distract employees from their work, and trust issues may be among these distracting factors.[15] Such factors that consume psychological energy can lower job performance and cause workers to lose sight of organizational goals.[9] Properly constructed and utilized PAs have the ability to lower distracting factors and encourage trust within the organization.[16] Goal setting and desired performance reinforcement: organizations find it efficient to match individual workers goals and performance with organizational goals.[9] PAs provide room for discussion in the collaboration of these individual and organizational goals.[17] Collaboration can also be advantageous by resulting in employee acceptance and satisfaction of appraisal results.[18] Performance improvement: well constructed PAs can be valuable tools for communication with employees as pertaining to how their job performance stands with organizational expectations.[12] At the organizational level, numerous studies have reported positive relationships between human resource management (HRM) practices"[9] and performance improvement at both the individual and organizational levels. Determination of training needs: Employee training and development are crucial components in helping an organization achieve strategic initiatives.[9][19] It has been argued that for PAs to truly be effective, post-appraisal opportunities for training and development in problem areas, as determined by the appraisal, must be offered.[20] PAs can especially be instrumental for identifying training needs of new employees.[5] Finally, PAs can help in the establishment and supervision of employees career goals.[12]
organization. Performance goals: performance goals and PA systems are often used in association. Negative outcomes concerning the organizations can result when goals are overly challenging or overemphasized to the extent of effecting ethnics, legal requirements, or quality.[24] Moreover, challenging performance goals can impede on employees abilities to acquire necessary knowledge and skills.[15] Especially in the early stages of training, it would be more beneficial to instruct employees on outcome goals than on performance goals.[9] Derail merit pay or performance-based pay: some researchers contend that the deficit in merit pay and performance-based pay is linked to the fundamental issues stemming from PA systems.[20]
appropriate and there is room for development, would benefit from more frequent PA feedback.[28] [6]
Objective production
The objective production method consists of direct, but limited, measures such as sales figures, production numbers, the electronic performance monitoring of data entry workers, etc.[4] The measures used to appraise performance would depend on the job and its duties. Although these measures deal with unambiguous criteria, they are usually incomplete because of criterion contamination and criterion deficiency. Criterion contamination refers to the part of the actual criteria that is unrelated to the conceptual criteria.[4] In other words, the variability in performance can be due to factors outside of the employees control. Criterion deficiency refers to the part of the conceptual criteria that is not measured by the actual criteria.[4] In other words, the quantity of production does not necessarily indicate the quality of the products. Both types of criterion inadequacies result in reduced validity of the measure.[4] Regardless of the fact that objective production data is not a complete reflection upon job performance, such data is relevant to job performance. The Happy-Productive Worker Hypothesis The happy-productive worker hypothesis states that the happiest workers are the most productive performers, and the most productive performers are the happiest workers[29] Yet, after decades of research, the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance produces only a weak positive correlation. Published in 2001 by Psychological Bulletin, a meta-analysis of 312 research studies produced an uncorrected correlation of 0.18.[30] This correlation is much weaker than what the happy-productive worker hypothesis would predict. There is no clear relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.[29]
Personnel
The personnel method is the recording of withdrawal behaviors (i.e. absenteeism, accidents). Most organizations consider unexcused absences to be indicators of poor job performance, even with all other factors being equal;[29] however, this is subject to criterion deficiency. The quantity of an employees absences does not reflect how dedicated he/she may be to the job and its duties. Especially for blue-collar jobs, accidents can often be a useful indicator of poor job performance,[4] but this is also subject to criterion contamination because situational factors also contribute to accidents. Once again, both types of criterion inadequacies result in reduced validity of the measure. [4] Although excessive absenteeism and/or accidents often indicate poor job performance rather than good performance, such personnel data is not a comprehensive reflection of an employees performance.[4]
Judgmental Evaluation
Judgmental evaluation appears to be a collection of methods, and as such, could be considered a methodology. A common approach to obtaining PAs is by means of raters.[1] Because the raters are human, some error will always be present in the data. The most common types of error are leniency errors, central tendency errors, and errors resulting from the halo effect.[1] These errors arise
predominantly from social cognition and the theory in that how we judge and evaluate other individuals in various contexts is associated with how we acquire, process, and categorize information.[1] An essential piece of this method is rater training. Rater training is the process of educating raters to make more accurate assessments of performance, typically achieved by reducing the frequency of halo, leniency, and central-tendency errors.[1] Rater training also helps the raters develop a common frame of reference for evaluation of individual performance.[31] Many researchers and survey respondents support the ambition of effectual rater training.[10] However, it is noted that such training is expensive, time consuming, and only truly functional for behavioral assessments.[10] Another piece to keep in mind is the effects of rater motivation on judgmental evaluations. It is not uncommon for rating inflation to occur due to rater motivation (i.e. organizationally induced pressures that compel raters to evaluate ratees positively).[1] Typically, raters are motivated to give higher ratings because of the lack of organizational sanction concerning accurate/inaccurate appraisals, the rater's desire to guarantee promotions, salary increases, etc., the rater's inclination to avoid negative reactions from subordinates, and the observation that higher ratings of the ratees reflect favorably upon the rater.[1] The main methods used in judgmental performance appraisal are:[1] Graphic Rating Scale: graphic rating scales (see scale (social sciences)) are the most commonly used system in PA.[1] On several different factors, subordinates are judged on 'how much' of that factor or trait they possess. Typically, the raters use a 5- or 7-point scale; however, there are as many as 20-point scales.[1] Employee-Comparison Methods: rather than subordinates being judged against preestablished criteria, they are compared with one another. This method eliminates central tendency and leniency errors but still allows for halo effect errors to occur.[1] The rank-order method has raters ranking subordinates from best to worst, but how truly good or bad one is on a performance dimension would be unknown.[1] The paired-comparison method requires the rater to select the two "best" subordinates out of a group on each dimension then rank individuals according to the number of times each subordinate was selected as one of the "best".[1] The forced-distribution method is good for large groups of ratees. The raters evaluate each subordinate on one or more dimensions and then place (or force-fit, if you will) each subordinate in a 5 to 7 category normal distribution.[1] The method of top-grading can be applied to the forced distribution method.[32] This method identifies the 10% lowest performing subordinates, as according to the forced distribution, and dismisses them leaving the 90% higher performing subordinates. Behavioral Checklists and Scales: behaviors are more definite than traits. The critical incidents method (or critical incident technique) concerns specific behaviors indicative of good or bad job performance.[1] Supervisors record behaviors of what they judge to be job performance relevant, and they keep a running tally of good and bad behaviors. A discussion on performance may then follow. The behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) combine the critical incidents method with rating scale methods by rating performance on a scale but with the scale points being anchored by behavioral incidents.[1] Note that BARS are job specific. Peer and Self Assessments While most judgmental PA research is evaluated by a superior (e.g. supervisor, manager), peer assessments are evaluated by ones colleagues. With self-assessments, individuals evaluate themselves.[1] Peer Assessments: members of a group evaluate and appraise the performance of their fellow group members.[1] There are three common methods of peer assessments. Peer nomination involves each group member nominating who he/she believes to be the best on a certain
dimension of performance. Peer ratings has each group member rate each other on a set of performance dimensions. Peer ranking requires each group member rank all fellow members from best to worst on one or more dimensions of performance. Self-Assessments: for self-assessments, individuals assess and evaluate their own behavior and job performance.[1] It is common for a graphic rating scale to be used for selfassessments. Positive leniency tends to be a problem with self-assessments.[4] 360-Degree Feedback: 360-degree feedback is multiple evaluations of employees which often include assessments from superior(s), peers, and ones self.[1]
Researchers suggest that the study of employees reactions to PA is important because of two main reasons: employee reactions symbolizes a criterion of interest to practitioners of PAs and employee reactions have been associated through theory to determinants of appraisal acceptance and success. [35] Researchers translate these reasons into the context of the scientist-practitioner gap or the lack of alignment between research and practice.[35]