Final Project
-
Upload
pallati-sujendra -
Category
Documents
-
view
47 -
download
4
Transcript of Final Project
A STUDY ON
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
WITH REFERENCE TO
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
BALANAGAR, HYDERABAD
Submitted for the partial fulfillment of
MASTER IN BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION
Submitted by
D. NARASIMHA RAO
Roll No: 08032E0023
Under the Esteemed Guidance of
Mr. T. PRABU KUMAR
Associate Professor, SMS, JNTUH
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERISTY
HYDERABAD
KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD-500 085.
1
DECLARATION
I, D. NARASIMHA RAO, pursuing M.B.A (PTPG) VI Semester at School of
Management Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad hereby declare that the project report titled “A STUDY ON
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH REFERENCE TO
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED” submitted by me in partial fulfillment
for award of Master of Business Administration is an original work.
Place: Hyderabad D. NARASIMHA RAO
Date: …………….. Roll No: 08032E0023
JNTUH
School of Management Studies
Kukatpally, Hyderabad
2
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY HYDERABAD
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that D. NARASIMHA RAO, Roll No. 08032E0023 is a student of
SMS, JNTUH and the report titled “A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH REFERENCE TO HINDUSTAN
AERONAUTICS LIMITED” done by him is an original work and is not submitted
to any other university other than JNTUH.
Place: Hyderabad D. NARASIMHA RAO
Date:…………….. Roll No: 08032E0023
JNTUH
School of Management Studies
Kukatpally, Hyderabad
3
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this is the bonafide project work entitled “A STUDY ON
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH REFERENCE TO
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED” carried out by Mr. D. NARASIMHA
RAO, Roll No.08032E0023 for the academic year 2008-2011 as a partial fulfillment
of M.B.A. degree submitted to School of Management Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru
Technological university,
Place: Hyderabad DR. A. R. ARYASRI
Date: …………… Director, SMS JNTUH
4
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. D. NARASIMHA RAO, Roll No.08032E0023 is a part-
time student of S M S, JNTUH and the report submitted by him entitled “A STUDY
ON PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT HINDUSTAN
AERONAUTICS LTD.” is his original work and is not submitted to any other
university other than J N T U. This project has been carried out under my guidance.
Place: Hyderabad Mr. T. PRABU KUMAR
Date: …………… Associate Professor- JNTUH
School of Management Studies
Kukatpally, Hyderabad
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me
during the Project.
My deepest thanks to Mr. T. PRABU KUMAR, the Guide of the Project for
guiding and correcting various documents of mine with attention and care. She has
taken her valuable time to go through the project and made necessary corrections as
and when needed.
I express my sincere thanks to Mr. N.N. SANJAY Sr. Manager (HR) HAL for their
excellent guidance in this Project.
I express my thanks to Dr. ARYASRI the Director of JNTUH- School of
Management
Studies, for extending their support. My deep sense of gratitude to my Friends for
their
support and guidance. Thanks and appreciation to the helpful people who involved
directly and indirectly and provided their support. And I would also thank my
Institution and my faculty members without whom this project would have been a
distant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well wishers.
Place: Hyderabad D. NARASIMHA RAO
Roll No: 08032E0023
JNTUH
School of Management Studies
Kukatpally, Hyderabad
6
INDEX
CHAPTER-I Page No
Introduction:
Need for the study
Objectives of the study
Scope of the study 1 to 18
Research Methodology
Limitations of the study
CHAPTER-II
Review of literature 19 to 40
CHAPTER-III
Profile of Industry 41 to 46
CHAPTER-IV
Profile of the Organization 47 to 71
CHAPTER-V
Data analysis and interpretation 72 to 111
CHAPTER-VI
Findings
Suggestions & 112 to 116
Conclusion
Bibliography 117 to 125
Appendix - I
7
CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION
8
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Human Resource Management
Human resource (or personnel) management is defined as getting things done
through people. It's an essential part of every manager's responsibilities, but many
organizations find it advantageous to establish a specialist division to provide an
expert service dedicated to ensuring that the human resource function is performed
efficiently.
"People are our most valuable asset" is a cliché which no member of any
senior management team would disagree with. Yet, the reality for many organizations
is that their people remain
under valued
under trained
under utilized
poorly motivated, and consequently
perform well below their true capability
The rate of change facing organizations has never been greater and
organizations must absorb and manage change at a much faster rate than in the past.
In order to implement a successful business strategy to face this challenge,
organizations, large or small, must ensure that they have the right people capable of
delivering the strategy.
The market place for talented, skilled people is competitive and expensive.
Taking on new staff can be disruptive to existing employees. Also, it takes time to
develop 'cultural awareness', product/ process/ organization knowledge and
experience for new staff members.
As organizations vary in size, aims, functions, complexity, construction, the
physical nature of their product, and appeal as employers, so do the contributions of
human resource management. But, in most the ultimate aim of the function is to:
"ensure that at all times the business is correctly staffed by the right number of people
9
with the skills relevant to the business needs", that is, neither overstaffed nor
understaffed in total or in respect of any one discipline or work grade.
Performance Management System
The PM approach is used most often in the workplace but applies wherever
people interact—schools, churches, community meetings, sports teams, health setting,
governmental agencies, and even political settings. PM principles are needed
wherever in the world people interact with their environments to produce desired
effects. Cultures are different but the laws of behavior are the same worldwide.
Armstrong and baron (1998) defined it as “A strategic and integrated approach to
increasing the effectiveness of organizations by improving the performance of the
people who work in them and by developing the capabilities of teams and individual
contributors”
It is possible to get all employees to reconcile personal goals with
organizational goals. One can turn around any marginal business and increase
productivity and profitability for any organization, with the transparent and hidden
forces embedded in this process. It can be applied by organizations or a single
department or section inside an organization; as well as an individual person.
The process is a natural, self-inspired performance process and is
appropriately named the self-propelled performance process (SPPP).
It is claimed that the self-propelled performance management system is:
1. The fastest known method for career promotion;
2. The quickest way for career advancement;
3. The surest way for career progress;
4. The best ingredient in career path planning;
5. The only true and lasting virtue for career success;
6. The most neglected part in teachings about management and leadership
principles;
7. The most complete and sophisticated application of performance management;
10
8. The best integration of human behaviour research findings, with the latest
management, leadership and organizational development principles;
9. The best automated method for organizational change, development, growth,
performance and profit;
10. The surest and fastest way for increased motivation, productivity, growth,
performance and profitability for both the individual and the organization;
11. The best career builder and career booster for any career; and
12. Inspirational, as it gets people moving, makes them self-starters in utilizing
own talents and initiative, automatically like magic.
Performance Appraisal System in HAL
The Performance Appraisal System of Officers in Grade – I to X has been
categorized into 5 levels. They are:
Level Grades
Level – I I & II
Level – II III & IV
Level – III V & VI
Level – IV VII & VIII
Level – V IX & X
Salient features of the Performance Appraisal system are:
Two tier system (Initiating Authority & Reviewing Authority)
Quarterly task setting and evaluation on a quarterly basis.
Traits based on the responsibilities associated with each level.
Self-Appraisal by officers at all levels.
Qualitative Assessment, Management Review Categorization & identification
of training & developmental needs both by IA & RA
The Performance Appraisal comprises of Nine major parts:
PART CONTENTS TO BE FILLED
11
BY
COVER
PAGEBio – data of the Appraisee Appraisee
PART – A Quarterly Task setting and Assessment Appraisee & IA
PART – BSelf Appraisal
Comments on Self Appraisal & Integrity
Appraisee
IA & RA
PART – C Assessment of Traits IA & RA
PART – DQualitative Assessment of the Appraisee
(Pen Picture)IA & RA
PART - EGeneral Assessment & Management Review
CategorizationIA & RA
PART – F Training And Developmental Needs IA & RA
PART – GEvaluation by Performance Review Board
Remarks of Higher Authorities
PRB
GM/MD/FD/CH
PART – H Illustration list of Areas for Training -
PART – I Check List HRD Cell
Quarters for the purpose of PARs:
Quarter Period
I 1st April to 30th June
II 1st July to 30th September
III 1st October to 31st December
IV 1st January to 31st March
SCALE OF GRADATION:
TOTAL
MARKS100-90 89-80 79-50 BELOW 50
Performance
RatingExceptional Above Average Average Below Average
ASSESSMENT METHOD
12
Selection of officers would be based on Marks scored in the PARs for the previous 3
years and Interview. Marks would be awarded in the Assessment as follows:
Criteria Maximum Marks
Written Test 25
Average Performance Index (API) 50
Interview 25
Total 100
Minimum Qualifying Marks in the Interview
Normal Promotions 60% (15 out of 25)
IMS 75% (18.75 out of 25)
Overall minimum qualifying marks (API + WT + Interview)
Normal Promotions 60 out of 100
IMS 85 out of 100
GENERAL: Officers who are left with less than 1 year of service before their
superannuation as on 1st July of the year of selection will not be considered generally
eligible for promotions.
PROCESSING & EFFECTING PROMOTIONS
Promotion to Grade Effected at
II & III Divisional Level
IV, V & VI Complex Level
VII & VIII Corporate Level
While the promotions under IMS up to and including Gr-VI will processed at
the Divisional/Complex Level, approval of Corporate Office will be obtained before
effecting the promotions.
1.3 Objectives of the Study:
The major objectives of this study are as follows:
13
To study and analyze the Performance Management System
followed by “Hindustan Aeronautics Limited”.
To study various Performance Management Practices.
To study the Satisfaction level of the Officers working in HAL
towards the Performance Management System followed in HAL
To study the various factors influencing Performance Appraisal
Policy in “Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.”
To study the Promotion Policy and its effect on the satisfaction
level and performance of Officers in “Hindustan Aeronautics
Limited.”
1.4 Methodology of the Study:
Selection of the Study
The topic of the study was decided in consultation with guide Smt.
Bharati Arsid, Officer HR since the Performance Management is very much important
in any organization. The main objective of the project is to find out the officer’s
satisfaction towards Performance Management System followed in HAL. Hence the
project is titled as “Performance Management System of Officers.”
Source of Data:
The task of data collection begins after a research problem has been defined.
To start any research collection of data is required so that we get a clear picture about
research, which will help to move further in the study.
Method of Data Collection:
There are two types of data namely Primary and Secondary Data.
The Primary Data are those, which are collected afresh and for the first time
and thus happen to be original in character.
14
The secondary data are those which have already been collected by someone
else and which have already been passed through the statistical process.
1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY
The study is confined to Hyderabad Division for 2 months;
It is confined to Officers from Grade – I to Grade – VI of Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited, Avionics Division.
It is confined to the Officers, who appeared in the promotion written test
which was conducted in the month of May, 2011.
1.6 Limitation of the Study:
HAL is a big organization and spread over the country so I limited my study to
the Avionics Division located at Balanagar, Hyderabad.
Time was main constraint. Two months period will not be sufficient to
conduct the study.
Some of the Executives hesitated to participate as they were too busy with
other important tasks.
Questionnaire forms were not submitted by some of the Officers in the
requested time period, this led to the slow analysis of the feedback.
Only 101 respondents are covered in the study.
1.7 Presentation of the study:
Present study is divided into 6 chapters.
15
The First Chapter consists of Introduction of the study.
The second chapter consists of Industry Profile and Company Profile.
The Third Chapter Consists of Review of literature.
The Fourth Chapter consists of the practical study - Data Analysis
and Interpretation of Recruitment and Selection activities.
The Fifth Chapter consists of the relevant findings over the observations and
suggestions of the data and Conclusion.
The Sixth Chapter consists of Bibliography and Annexure.
16
CHAPTER – II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
17
Performance management system:
Definition:
Performance management is the process of creating a work environment or
setting in which people are enabled to perform to the best of their abilities.
Performance management is a whole work system that begins when a job is defined as
needed. It ends when an employee leaves your organization.
A performance management system includes the following actions.
Develop clear job descriptions.
Select appropriate people with an appropriate selection process.
Negotiate requirements and accomplishment-based performance standards,
outcomes, and measures.
Provide effective orientation, education, and training.
Provide on-going coaching and feedback.
Conduct quarterly performance development discussions.
Design effective compensation and recognition systems that reward people for
their contributions.
Provide promotional/career development opportunities for staff.
Assist with exit interviews to understand WHY valued employees leave the
organization.
TERMINOLOGY
Behavior - a manner of conducting oneself
Checklist appraisals – a performance appraisal formant that requires the rater
to check items most representative of the employee’s characteristics and work
contributions
Comparative appraisal methods – measurement of individuals against each
other, resulting in a list of individuals ranked in order of performance
18
Competency-based appraisal – appraisal based on knowledge, skills, and
abilities.
Critical incidents – reports made by knowledgeable observers of action taken
by individuals who were especially effective or ineffective in accomplishing
their jobs
Essay appraisal – a performance appraisal format that rates the employee’s
job performance in a narrative discussion
Graphic rating scale – a format used to rate performance on a continuum of
scale points
Management by objectives – a performance appraisal system that sets
organizational goals and measures actual accomplishments against them
Performance appraisal – Formal, written assessment of employee work
contributions and the communication that takes place with employees before,
during, and after the assessment. Process by which an organization measures
and evaluates an individual’s behavior and accomplishments.
Performance standards – statement of what is considered acceptable and
attainable on a particular job
Traits – personal characteristics or attributes of an individual that tend to be
consistent
PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS
Major use is for pay decisions
Identify candidates for promotion and reassignment
Determine needs for training and development
Give feedback for improvement
Administer rewards and discipline
Motivation tool for improved productivity
Goal setting for future accomplishments and measure attainment
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CRITERIA
Traits – Traits such as leadership, judgment, initiative and dependability are
positively correlated with job performance but may be difficult to measure
19
Behaviors – This criteria focuses on tasks to be performed but performance of
expected criteria do not necessarily lead to success on the job if other criteria
is not met
Outcomes – Focuses on measurable results
IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEMS
Establishing policies and procedures for consistency in rating
Training raters to
o Understand the key accountabilities of their jobs
o Establish reasonable goals and measures of performance
o Coach subordinates
o Adjust expectations
o Overcome common rating errors
o Keep consistent performance records
o Accurately and consistently appraise performance
o Listen effectively
o Give timely feedback
o Focus on observable behaviors
o Gain employees’ agreement in meeting acceptable standards of
performance
WHY PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS FAIL
Lack of objectivity
Lack of job knowledge
Evaluating non-job related criteria
Unfocused criticism – comments too general
Lack of opportunity for feedback
Insufficient time spent on evaluation
Inconsistent standards
20
Content of appraisal
PERFORMANCEAPPRAISAL
TRADITIONAL METHODS
MODERNMETHODS
Essay Appraisal MethodStraight Ranking MethodPaired ComparisonCritical Incidents MethodsField ReviewChecklist MethodGraphic Ratings ScaleForced Distribution
Management By Objectives (MBO)360 Degree AppraisalAssessment CentresBehaviorally Anchored Rating ScaleHuman Resource Accounting
21
Quantity of work
Volume of work under normal working conditions
Quality of work.
Neatness, thoroughness and accuracy of work Knowledge of job.
Dependability.
Conscientious, thorough, reliable, accurate, with respect to attendance, relief,
lunch breaks, etc.
Judgment
Attitude.
Exhibits enthusiasm and cooperativeness on the job
Cooperation.
Willingness and ability to work with others to produce desired goals.
Initiative.
Studying validity is studying the problem of whether or not a test measures what it
purports to measure. Assessment centres have high predictive, face and content
validity because of the following reasons –
a. Designing of ACs is based on job analysis
b. Observers are extensively trained
c. Candidates are graded by using ratings of competencies
The construct and criterion validity of assessment centres depends on effective job
analysis. If job analysis is properly done then these two validities are also found to be
high.
4. HUMAN RESOURCE ACCOUNTING METHOD
22
The American Accounting Association’s Committee on Human Resource
Accounting (1973) has defined Human Resource Accounting as “the process of
identifying and measuring data about human resources and communicating this
information to interesting this information to interested parties”. HRA, thus, not only
involves measurement of all the costs/investments associated with the recruitment,
placement, training and development of employees, but also the quantification of the
economic value of the people in an organization.
Human resources are valuable assets for every organization. Human resource
accounting method tries to find the relative worth of these assets in the terms of
money. In this method the Performance appraisal of the employees is judged in terms
of cost and contribution of the employees. The cost of employees include all the
expenses incurred on them like their compensation, recruitment and selection costs,
induction and training costs etc whereas their contribution includes the total value
added (in monetary terms). The difference between the cost and the contribution will
be the performance of the employees. Ideally, the contribution of the employees
should be greater than the cost incurred on them.
HRA serves the following purposes in an organization:
It furnishes cost/value information for making management decisions about
acquiring, allocating, developing, and maintaining human resources in order to
attain cost-effectiveness;
It allows management personnel to monitor effectively the use of human
resources;
It provides a sound and effective basis of human asset control, that is, whether
the asset is appreciated, depleted or conserved;
It helps in the development of management principles by classifying the
financial consequences of various practices.
23
CHAPTER – III
INDUSTRY PROFILE
INDUSTRY PROFILE
Aeronautical industry
Following the rapid development of powered flight at the beginning of the
20th century aircraft manufacture, in common with many other strategic industries,
was given a great stimulus during the First World War. The military potential of
fixed-wing aircraft for observation and combat was proved for the first time on any
24
scale. Non-rigid airships were used on coastal patrol and anti-submarine work and
later large rigid airships, the R33 and R34, were built, based on German designs. In
July 1919 the R34 was the first aircraft to cross the Atlantic from Britain to America.
Regular civil aviation developed after the war, with the first daily service from
London to Paris commencing in 1919. Several British companies joined to form
Imperial Airways in 1924 and the network for both mail and passenger transport was
gradually extended beyond Europe to outposts of the empire in Africa and Asia. In
1931 the company adopted the Handley Page aircraft, which could carry 40
passengers at 100 mph. From 1934 the Empire Flying Boat, nicknamed the ‘Queen of
the Skies’, carrying its passengers in considerable comfort, could cruise for 800 miles
at 165 mph. The British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) was established
1939.
The Second World War changed the face of aviation and again brought major
advances in aircraft design and propulsion, particularly turbo-prop and jet engines,
leading to the development of much larger and faster civilian aircraft. Post-war
expansion to meet military and civil aviation requirements brought further significant
innovations, but at considerable cost. One prestige project typified the ‘white-heat of
technology’ era of the 1960s, when Britain, in co-operation with France, operated at
the limits of known technology in the race to produce a supersonic passenger
transport aircraft. Concorde was developed, in spite of escalating cost and the
uncertainty of its financial viability, swallowing hundreds of millions of pounds, in an
exercise described by one expert as ‘an unmitigated disaster without historical
parallel’.
Despite an impressive performance in aero-engines and in other sectors of
aerospace during the 1960s and 1970s, the commercial viability of some projects was
questionable and deprived routine manufacturing of talented engineers and scientists.
While remaining the third largest in the world after the USA and France, the British
aerospace industry suffered badly during the periodic crises experienced by civil
aviation and from reductions in defence orders. During the 1980s, collaborative
development of civil and military aircraft, particularly with European partners,
increased to save on costs of new production programmes.
25
Defence offsets will quicken the pace of India's high-growth aerospace industry,
says Toby Simon.
From Wright Aeronautical Company to Rolls-Royce, private companies have
played a part in shaping the global aerospace industry. However, the government and
the aerospace sector are like Siamese twins.
The economic scale required for development in aerospace is large, and hence
the industry depends on the government for infrastructure development and R&D.
This dependence carries risks, as spending is subject to the political process. Hence, it
is one of the toughest markets to tap.
The government hopes to turn this constraint into an advantage through the
offset clause, mentioned in the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP). It wishes to
encourage private sector involvement, and is hoping to have $30 billion (about Rs
140,000 crore) generated in offset opportunities.
The effective implementation of such an offset policy can facilitate the
absorption and indigenization of foreign aeronautic technologies that accrue to the
country by way of offset deals.
In doing this, the government wishes to emulate the success of Brazil, Israel
and Spain. Embraer Corporation, the Brazilian aeronautics major established in 1969,
is a noteworthy success story.
The company proved to be the leader in the absorption and indigenization of
foreign aeronautic technologies that accrued to it by way of offset deals. In the 1960's,
Embraer's first military plane, the EMB 326 Xavante trainer, was manufactured under
licence from Aeromacchi, Italy.
In the early 1970s, Embraer signed a technology transfer agreement with Piper
of the US for manufacturing Piper Seneca light Aeroplanes. In 1975, when 49 F-5
aircraft were bought by Brazil from Northrop of the US, Embraer was involved in
manufacturing several fuselage components.
26
The 1970s and 1980s saw further growth, as Embraer embarked on a co-
production arrangement with Aeromacchi and Aeritalia to build a subsonic light
attack jet fighter, the AMX. Different parts and subsystems of this aircraft, such as
engine components, multi-mode radar and head-up display, were made in Brazil
under licence arrangements.
The 1990s saw the development of SIVAM, a huge monitoring, surveillance,
communications and air traffic control system for Brazil's Amazon basin area. It was
a $1.4-billion contract that went to Raytheon, Embraer and other Brazilian companies.
The SIVAM project was a major step in technology absorption by Brazil and
served to develop local software capabilities. In 1999, with 40 per cent market share,
Embraer stood about equal to Bombardier. It is this example that the Indian
government wants to duplicate.
India already has a strong aerospace industry, and aerospace component- and
defence equipment-makers have been thriving. The country has a pool of qualified
engineering, science and computing graduates; availability of high-tech/precision
equipment, materials and consumables; established production systems; a strong IT
industry; world-class educational institutions; a good network of aeronautical
development labs; favourable geographical location and manufacturing cost
advantage.
The aerospace industry is, therefore, set to contribute substantially to India's
economic growth. Over the last 16 years, India has seen more engineering and R&D
investments in aerospace than the US or Europe.
In Bangalore, Honeywell Technology Solutions has set up an engineering
facility with over 5,500 engineers, while GE's Jack Welch Technology Centre has an
extensive research lab with over 3,000 engineers.
Airbus is setting up an Airbus Engineering Center India (AECI) facility, which
will hire 200-plus engineers of its own, and more than 2,000 through its partners.
27
Indian aerospace companies are growing too. HAL was ranked 40th in Flight
International's list of the top 100 aerospace companies last year. And the growth of
the aerospace industry has led to the opening up of spin-off opportunities in other
sectors. Offshore engineering services, for one, have seen a spurt in growth.
According to a Nasscom-Booz Allen Hamilton report, there will be a $40
billion opportunity for the offshore engineering industry worldwide by 2020. India is
expected to have a 2-3 per cent share in the aerospace offshored engineering service.
This amounts to $1.2 billion by 2011.
Growth in the aerospace industry has allowed a number of automobile
manufacturers to exploit forward and backward linkages with the aerospace industry.
India is also equipped to become a hub for maintenance, repair and overhauling
(MRO). The MRO market in India was valued at $970 million in 2008, and can
absorb massive investments.
The government, on the advice of the Kelkar Committee, has opened up the
aerospace industry to the private sector. State governments are doing their bit by
setting up special economic zones (SEZs) for the aerospace industry. These include:
The Rs 3,000-crore Aerospace and Precision Engineering Special Economic
Zone to be set up at Adibatla, Ranga Reddy district in Andhra Pradesh
The specialised aerospace park of around 1,000 acres, proposed near the
Bangalore International Airport;
The 2,500-acre SEZ for the aerospace and avionics industry, proposed to be
established in south Gujarat, close to the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor.
This is likely to have a number of MRO facilities.
The cumulative value of the Indian defence market for the next five years is
approximately Rs 180,000 crore (Rs 1.8 trillion), which makes it one of the most
attractive in the world -especially, with the capital outlay for defence hiked this year
to Rs 54,824 crore (Rs 548.24 billion), up from last year's revised estimate of Rs
41,000 crore (Rs 410 billion).
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
28
INTRODUCTION
The beginning of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited can be traced to the year
1940 when a far-sighted industrialist, the late Walchand Hirachand set up a company
called Hindustan Aircraft Limited in association with the Government of Mysore with
the object of establishing an Aviation Industry that can manufacture, assemble and
overhaul aircraft under license. The company was registered on December 23, 1940 as
a private limited company, with an authorised capital of Rs. 4 crore. The Production
line was established in collaboration with the Inter Continental Aircraft Company of
the USA for the manufacture of Harlow trainer, Curtiss Hawk fighter and Vultee
attack bomber. In the year 1941 the first flight of a Harlow trainer took place followed
by, the flight of India's first indigenous effort, a ten seater glider designed by Dr.
V.M. Ghatage. To support the Second World War efforts the aircraft manufacturing
programmes were abandoned in favour of repair and overhaul of aircraft and the
company became the principal overhaul base for the South East Asia Command of the
Allied forces. After World War II in December 1945 the Government of India took
over the management of the Company, and activities were increased multifold after
India attained its freedom. Between 1942 and 1945, a total of 1000 Aircraft and 3400
Engines were overhauled. The main activity for the next few years after the war was
reconditioning and conversion of war surplus Aircraft for the use of IAF and Civil
operators. In the six decades, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has spread its wings to
cover various activities in the areas of Design, Development, Manufacture and
Maintenance. “To become a global player in the aerospace industry”
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has blossomed into a major player in the
global aviation arena, and is today among the elite Navaratna companies. From what
was earlier the Hindustan Aircraft Limited, founded in 1940 by the great visionary
Seth Walchand Hirachand, in association with the former Princely Stat of Mysore,
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is now ranked 34 th in the list of world’s top 100
Aviation Industries.
The Government of India became one of the shareholders of Hindustan
Aircraft Limited in March 1941 and took over the management in 1942. Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited, in it present form as a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) under
29
the Ministry of Defence and fully owned by GoI, came into existence on October 1,
1964, when Aeronautics India Limited and Aircraft Manufacturing Depot were
merged with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.
The company has 19 production divisions and 9 R&D centres.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s expertise encompasses design, development,
production, repair, overhaul and upgrade of aircraft, helicopters, aero engines,
accessories, avionics and systems. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has also diversified
into Industrial and Marine gas turbine engines, and structures for aerospace vehicles.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is largest PSU under the Department of
Defence Production, Government of India and is a ‘Navaratna’ company.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, with its wide spectrum of expertise in Design,
Development and Manufacture of Aircraft, Helicopters, Engines, Accessories
and Avionics has emerged as a major Aeronautical complex in Asia.
All the production Divisions in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited have ISO
9001-2000 accreditation and ten divisions have ISO 14001-1996 Environment
Management System Certification.
30
ORGANISATION STRUCTURE
31
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED LOCATION AND BRANCHES
MANAGEMENT ACADEMY
Founded in August 1969 it has become a premier executive training institute
where a balanced mix of training methodology is used. Complementing this is a full-
fledged faculty of experienced line Managers and Management Consultants. It also
undertakes modular programs and custom made programmes. It has a well equipped
Library, Auditorium and Residential facilities.
AIRCRAFT DIVISION
It is established in 1940. This Division has been manufacturing a variety of
Aircraft. Currently the division is manufacturing the upgraded Jaguar Aircraft. The
division also exports high precision sub-assemblies to renowned aircraft manufactures
like Airbus and Boeing. The division is also gearing up for manufacture of HAWK
Advanced Jet Trainer.
32
ACCESSORIES DIVISION – LUCKNOW
The manufacturing range of this Division includes mechanical and hydro
mechanical, fuel system and instrument accessories for the complete range of aircraft
produced by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. In addition the division also
manufactures a wide variety of ground support equipment. An independent Aerospace
System and Equipment R&D Centre is also attached to this Division.
TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT DIVISION – KANPUR
Originally set up for manufacture of Avro HS-748 transport aircraft, the
division today manufactures Dornier-Do -228 aircraft. The division also undertakes
repair and overhaul of HS748, HPT-32, DO-228, AN-32, Canbera and Gliders as well
as product updates, modification etc for transport aircraft.
AVIONICS DIVISION – HYDERABAD
This division undertakes production and servicing of Navigation and
Communication equipment, Airborne/Ground Radars and sub systems for aerospace
and civil applications. Design and development activities pertaining to
Communication and Radar systems are undertaken in the strategic Electronics R&D
Centre, which forms a part of the Division.
AVIONICS DIVISION – KORWA
The division manufactures and undertakes repairs and maintenance of
advanced avionics systems for military aircraft covering inertial Navigation System.
Head Up Display, Weapon Aiming Computers, Combined Map and Electronic
Display, Laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker as well as Solid State Flight Data
Recorders.
AIRCRAFT DIVISION – NASIK
33
Established as a manufacturing base for MiG series aircraft, the division has
manufactured and overhauled a large number of MiG series aircraft. Currently the
division repairs, overhauls and upgrades, MiG 21 series, MiG 21-BIS and MiG 27. It
also manufactures flexible fuel tanks, metallic drop tanks and honeycomb structures
and variety of support equipment. This division has launched manufacture of Su-30
MKI Aircraft. The delivery of the Su-30 MKI from the Division is scheduled from
2004-05 onwards. An Aircraft upgrade R&D Centre also forms part of this Division.
ENGINE DIVISION – KORAPUT
The Division undertakes the repair and overhaul of R11, R12, R29 B and
RD-33 engines for the MiG series aircraft. The division has excellent hot forging and
precision die casting facilities for both ferrous and non-ferrous alloys. A separate
Division has been formed for the license manufacturing activities of AL-31FP engines
for Su-30 MKI. A Gas Turbine R&D Centre in the Division provides design and
liaison support to manufacturing and overhaul activities.
STRATEGIES
To be in total alignment with Corporate Strategy
Maintain Human Resource at optimum level to meet the objectives and goals
of the Company
Be competent in Mapping, Analysis and Upgradation of Knowledge and
Skills including Training, Re-training, Multi-skilling etc.
Cultivate Leadership with Shared Vision at various levels in the Organization
Focus on Development of Core Competence in High-Tech areas
Build Cross-functional Teams
Create awareness of Mission, Values and Organizational Goals through out
the Company
Introduce / Implement personnel policies based on performance that would
ensure growth, Rewards, Recognition, Motivation
VISION
"To make HAL a dynamic, vibrant, value-based learning organisation with
human resources exceptionally skilled, highly motivated and committed to meet the
34
current and future challenges. This will be driven by core values of the Company fully
embedded in the culture of the Organisation"
MISSION
To become a globally competitive Aerospace Industry while working as an
instrument for achieving self-reliance in Design, Manufacture and Maintenance of
Aerospace Defence equipment and diversifying to related areas, managing the
business on commercial lines in a climate of growing professional competence.
TRUST AND TEAM SPIRIT
We believe in achieving harmony in work-life through mutual trust,
transparency, co-operation, and a sense of belonging. We will strive for building
empowered teams to work towards achieving organizational goals.
RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
We value our people. We will treat each other with dignity and respect and
strive for individual growth and realization of everyone's full potential.
INTEGRITY
We believe in a commitment to be honest, trustworthy, and fair in all our
dealings. We commit to be loyal and devoted to our organization. We will practice
self discipline and own responsibility for our actions. We will comply with all
requirements so as to ensure that our organization is always worthy of trust.
35
PRODUCT PROFILE
Aircraft designed and developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
HT-2 Piston-engined trainer
Pushpak Light aircraft for flying clubs
KrishakAir Observation Post
Marut(HF-24) Ground Attack Jet Fighter
Marut Trainer Operational Trainer
Kiran Mk.I and IA and II Basic Jet Trainer
Basant Agricultural Aircraft
Ajeet Light Fighter
HPT-32 Piston-engined Trainer
HTT-34 Turboprop Variant
Aircraft produced under license at Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
Percival Prentice Trainer
VampireFighter-Bomber
Gnat Intercepter
Mig-21 FL Intercepter
Mig-21 bis Ground Attack
Jaguar Multi-role Fighter
Mig-27 Ground Attack
Avro(HS-748) Medium Transport
Dornier-228 Light Transport
Chetak Utility Helicopter
Cheetah R and O
36
CUSTOMERS PROFILE
Established initially to cater to Indian Air Force, today the list of their
esteemed and satisfied customers includes:
Indian Air Force
Indian Army
Indian Navy
Coast Guard
Civil Aviation Sector
Indian Space Research Organisation
Defence Research & Development Organisations
Centre for Airborne Systems
Ship Building Industries GRSE, MDL, GSL, HSL
Public Sector Undertakings
State Police Departments
Other Sister Divisions of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
37
ORGANISATION GROWTH OF HAL
38
Expansion of Nasik Division as Aircraft Manufacturing Division and Aircraft Overhaul Division
Establishment ofSukhoi Engine Division
at Koraput
Establishment ofAirport Service Centre
for coordinating the operations at HAL Airport, Bangalore
Establishment ofIndustrail & Marine Gas Turbine Division
for coordinative gas turbines/Industrial engines
Establishment ofAero Space Division
for Structure of Aerospace Launch Vehicles
Establishment ofKorwa Division
for Advanced Avionics
Establishment ofFoundry & Forge Division
At, Bangalore
Establishment ofHelicopter Division
at, Bangalore
Establishment of Lucknow Division for Accessories & Instruments
Formation ofHindustan Aeronautics Limited
By Merger of 3 Companies
Establishment of Aeronautics India LimitedAt Nasik, Koraput & Hyderabd for MiG Airframe, Denines & Avionics
Establishment ofAircraft Manufacturing Depot
At Kanpur for HS-748
Establishment ofEngine DivisionAt Bangalore
Hindustan Aircraft Limitedat Bangalore
2002
2000
1998
1988
1982
1974
1970
1964
1962
1960
1940
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS:
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) has cruised past the Rs.7,500-crore
mark for the first time with a sales turnover of Rs.7,783.61 crores ($1.82 billion)
during the Financial Year 2006-07, The Value of Production has also gone up by
55.54% to Rs. 9,201.88 crores, while the Profit of the Company (Profit Before Tax)
soared to Rs.1,743.60 crores, which is an increase of 54.88% over the previous year's
performance.
The highlights are given below:
Rupees in Crores
Particulars 2005-06 2006-07
Growth over Previous
Year
Sales 5342 7783 45.69%
VOP 5916 9202 55.54%
Profit before tax 1126 1744 54.88%
Profit after tax 771 1149 49.03%
Gross Block 1694 2081 22.85%
39
Awards:
The Avionics Division, Hyderabad has been accredited with ISO-9001
CERTIFICATION and accomplished the following milestone.
First prize in the field of Strategic Electronics during 1991 from Department
of Electronics, Govt. of India.
National Award for R&D in Electronics from DSIR, Ministry of Science and
Technology.
ISO 9001 Certification for design, development, production and servicing.
Qualification approval for Printed Circuit Boards from LCSO.
Accreditation by National Accreditation board for test and calibration
laboratories.
Qualification approval for the hybrid manufacturing for the Aerospace
application.
Fitment of indigenously developed avionics on all the aircraft acquired by
Indian Defence Services.
Services:
Retro - modification
HAL has developed a specialised 'Flight Test Group' with expertise in trial
installation of Avionic systems on Fixed and Rotary wings of Combat and Transport
Aircraft. This group has achieved success in installing its latest Avionic systems on
MiG-21 series, MiG-23, MiG-27M, MiG-29, IL-38, Su-30 MKI, HS 748, and TU-142
series of aircraft and also on helicopters like MI - 8, MI - 25, Seaking, Chetak and
Cheetah. It has exhibited complete self-sufficiency for conducting feasibility studies,
manufacturing of Mod Kits, Installation and Flight Testing of Avionic systems.
Repair and Overhaul
40
HAL has excellent facilities and procedures for defect investigation, repair and
overhaul of Russian, Western and indigenous air-borne equipment. Our Engineers
have vast experience in all these systems and they also carry out field repairs. The
principle of Inspect and Repair as Necessary (IRAN) is followed, which means that
the equipment need not be sent for regular / periodic overhaul. The repair facilities are
available from first generation to fourth generation equipment with frequencies from
DC to 40 GHz.
41
CHAPTER – V
DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION
42
1. Since how long have you been working in HAL?
ATTRIBUTESNO. OF
RESPONDENTS% OF RESPONDANTS
For the past 0-2 years 2 1.98
For the past 2-5 years 43 42.57
For the past 5-10 years 22 21.78
For the past 11 years & above 34 33.66
Total 101 100
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 1.98% i.e., 2 respondents have been working for
the past 0-2 years, 42.57% i.e., 43 respondents have been working for the past 2-5
years, 21.78% i.e., 22 respondents have been working for the past 5-10 years, 33.66%
i.e., 34 respondents have been working for the past 11 years & above in the
organization.
NO. OF RESPONDENTS
2%
42%
22%
34%
for the past 0-2 years
for the past 2-5 years
for the past 5-10 years
for the past 11 years &above
43
2. The System of PAR which is followed in HAL
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Highly Satisfied 4 3.96
Satisfied 77 76.24
Dissatisfied 16 15.84
Highly Dissatisfied 4 3.96
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 76.24% i.e., 77 respondents are satisfied with the
system of PAR, 15.84% i.e., 16 respondents are dissatisfied with the system of PAR,
3.96% i.e., 4 respondents are highly satisfied and 3.96% i.e., 4 respondents are highly
dissatisfied with the system of PAR followed in HAL.
80.20% of the Officers are satisfied with the system of PAR which is
followed in HAL.
4%
76%
16%
4%
Highly Satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Highly Dissatisfied
44
3. Evaluation of Officers' performance on quarterly basis
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Excellent 9 8.91
Very Good 30 29.70
Good 45 44.55
Average 17 16.83
Total 101 100
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 44.55% i.e., 45 respondents says that evaluation of
the Officers’ performance on quarterly basis is good.
29.70% i.e., 30 respondents says it is very good, 16.83% i.e., 17 respondents
says it is average and only 8.91% i.e., 9 respondents says that evaluation of Officers’
performance on quarterly basis is excellent.
On an average it is evident from the analysis that (8.91%+29.70%+44.55%)
83.16% of Officers agree that the system of quarterly evaluation is good.
9%
30%
44%
17%
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Average
45
4. The Scale of gradation which is followed in HAL for PAR
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Highly Satisfied 6 5.94
Satisfied 76 75.25
Dissatisfied 14 13.86
Highly Dissatisfied 5 4.95
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 75.25% i.e., 76 respondents are satisfied with the
scale of gradation followed in the organization.
13.86% i.e., 14 respondents are dissatisfied, 5.94% i.e., 6 respondents are
highly satisfied and 4.95% i.e., 5 respondents are highly dissatisfied with the scale of
gradation followed in the organization.
Scale of Gradation needs no changes as 75% of Officers are satisfied.
6%
75%
14%
5%
Highly Satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Highly Dissatisfied
46
5. Devotion of 40% of marks in quarterly task sheets for improvement task
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Excellent 14 13.86
Very Good 17 16.83
Good 42 41.58
Average 28 27.72
Total 101 100
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 41.58% i.e., 42 respondents says that the policy of
devoting of 40% marks in quarterly task sheets for improvement task is good.
27.72% i.e., 28 respondents says it is average, 16.83% i.e., 17 respondents
says it is very good.
And very less percentage of 13.86 i.e., 14 respondents says the policy of
devoting of 40% marks in quarterly task sheets for improvement task is excellent.
Defining improvement task for each quarter may be very difficult. Further the
marks assigned to improvement task can be reduced.
47
14%
17%
41%
28%
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Average
6. Receiving of feedback on your performance by your boss
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Highly Satisfied 17 16.83
Satisfied 62 61.39
Dissatisfied 16 15.84
Highly Dissatisfied 5 4.95
No Answer 1 0.99
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 61.39% i.e., 62 respondents are satisfied to receive
feedback on their performance by their boss.
16.83% i.e., 17 respondents are highly satisfied, 15.84% i.e., 16 respondents
are dissatisfied, 4.95% i.e., 5 respondents are highly dissatisfied, 0.99% i.e., 1
respondent did not give answer.
From the above table it can be known that most of the respondents are
satisfied with receiving feedback on their performance by their boss.
48
17%
61%
16%
5%
1%
Highly Satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Highly Dissatisfied
No Answer
7. The present system of PAR is too-time consuming
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 10 9.90
Agree 41 40.59
Disagree 43 42.57
Strongly Disagree 7 6.93
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 42.57% i.e., 43 respondents are disagreeing that
the present system of PAR is too – time consuming.
40.59% i.e., 41 respondents are agreeing that the present system of PAR is too
– time consuming, 9.9% i.e., 10 respondents are strongly agreeing that the present
system of PAR is too – time consuming.
And only 6.93% i.e., 7 respondents are strongly disagreeing that the present
system of PAR is too – time consuming.
This is a contradictory situation that 50% of Officers agree that PAR system is
too-time consuming and other 50% disagree with this statement.
49
10%
41%42%
7%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
8. Ratings are sometimes seen as based on subjective judgment
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 11 10.89
Agree 71 70.30
Disagree 18 17.82
Strongly Disagree 1 0.99
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table reveals that 70.3% i.e., 71 respondents agree that the ratings
are sometimes seen as based on subjective judgement, the respondents mostly belongs
to SLRDC, QC, HR and Communication Departments.
17.82% i.e., 78 respondents disagree that the ratings are sometimes based on
subjective judgement, 10.89% i.e., 11 respondents strongly agree. And 0.99% i.e.,
only 1 respondent out of total sample strongly disagree that the ratings are sometimes
seen as based on subjective judgement.
80% of the Officers are agreeing with the fact that the ratings are based on
subjective judgment.
50
11%
70%
18%1%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
9. Training is given subsequently as recommended in PAR
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 7 6.93
Agree 34 33.66
Disagree 38 37.62
Strongly Disagree 22 21.78
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 37.62% i.e., 38 respondents disagree that the
training is given subsequently as recommended in PAR.
33.66% i.e., 34 respondents agree that the training is given subsequently as
recommended in PAR, 21.78% i.e., 22 respondents strongly disagree that the training
is given subsequently as recommended in PAR.
And only 6.93% i.e., 7 respondents strongly agree that the training is given
subsequently as recommended in PAR.
51
As 60% disagree with the statement so steps can be taken to ensure that the
training recommended in PAR is given to the Officers and more training programs are
to be organized.
7%
34%
37%
22%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10. Replacing present PAR system with online PAR system
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 28 27.72
Agree 54 53.47
Disagree 13 12.87
Strongly Disagree 5 4.95
No answer 1 0.99
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows that the 53.47% i.e., 54 respondents agree with the
replacing of present PAR system with online PAR system and most of them belong to
SLRDC, QC, Purchase and Communication departments.
27.72% i.e., 28 respondents strongly agree with it and 12.87% i.e., 13
respondents disagree with the above statement.
52
4.95% i.e., 5 respondents strongly disagree with the above statement and one
respondent did not give the answer as he is not aware of what is online PAR system.
81% of the Officers agree that present PAR system should be replaced with
online PAR system.
28%
53%
13%
5%
1%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No answer
11. Quarterly task setting & evaluation are done as per schedule
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 5 4.95
Agree 57 56.44
Disagree 30 29.70
Strongly Disagree 9 8.91
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table reveals that the 56.44% i.e., 57 respondents agree that the
quarterly task setting & evaluation are done as per the schedule.
53
29.7% i.e., 30 respondents disagree, 8.91% i.e., 9 respondents strongly
disagree and only 4.95% i.e., 5 respondents strongly agree that the quarterly task
setting and evaluation are done as per the schedule.
5%
56%
30%
9%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
12. Subordinates are rated based upon his/her performance
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 16 15.84
Agree 69 68.32
Disagree 13 12.87
Strongly Disagree 3 2.97
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table reveals that the 68.32% i.e., 69 respondents agree that the
Subordinates are rated based upon his/her performance.
15.84% i.e., 16 respondents strongly agree, 12.87% i.e., 13 respondents
disagree and only 2.97% i.e., 3 respondents strongly disagree that the subordinates are
rated based upon his/her performance.
54
83% of Officers agreeing that the subordinates are rated based upon his/her
performance on the other hand 80% of the Officers are agreeing with the fact that the
ratings are based on subjective judgment these two sentence are contradictory.
16%
68%
13%3%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
13. Self-appraisal is taken into consideration while performance is appraised
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 8 7.92
Agree 71 70.30
Disagree 19 18.81
Strongly Disagree 2 1.98
No answer 1 0.99
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table reveals that the 70.30% i.e., 71 respondents agree that the
self-appraisal is taken into consideration while performance is appraised and most of
them belong to Communication, HR, IT, MSD, Purchase, QC and SLRDC
departments.
55
18.81% i.e., 19 respondents disagree, 7.92% i.e., 8 respondents strongly agree,
1.98% i.e., 2 respondents strongly disagree that the self-appraisal is taken into
consideration while performance is appraised and one respondent did not respond to
the above statement.
8%
70%
19%
2%
1%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
No answer
14. Your IA appraises you about your performance while evaluating the quarterly task
sheets & PAR
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 13 12.87
Agree 67 66.34
Disagree 19 18.81
Strongly Disagree 2 1.98
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table reveals that 66.34% i.e., 67 respondents agree that their IA
appraises their performance while evaluating the quarterly task sheets & PAR,
18.81% i.e., 19 respondents disagree with it, 12.87% i.e., 13 respondents strongly
agree with it.
56
Only 1.98% i.e., 2 respondents out of the whole sample strongly disagree that
their IA appraises them about their performance while evaluating the quarterly task
sheets & PAR.
13%
66%
19%
2%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
15. You are fully aware about the PAR system being followed in HAL
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 21 20.79
Agree 71 70.30
Disagree 8 7.92
Strongly Disagree 1 0.99
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 70.30% i.e., 71 respondents agree that they are
fully aware about the PAR system being followed in HAL, 20.79% respondents
strongly agree that they are fully aware about the PAR system being followed in
HAL.
57
7.92% i.e., 8 respondents disagree that they are full aware about the PAR
system followed in HAL and only 0.99% i.e., 1 respondent strongly disagree that
he/she is fully aware about the PAR system being followed in HAL.
21%
70%
8% 1%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
16. Your relation with your boss
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Excellent 22 21.78
Very Good 49 48.51
Good 25 24.75
Average 5 4.95
Total 101 100
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 48.51% i.e., 49 respondents says their relation with
the boss is very good, 24.75% i.e., 25 respondents says it is good.
21.78% i.e., 22 respondents says that their relation with the boss is excellent
and only 4.95% i.e., 5 respondents says that their relation with the boss is average.
95% of the officers are having very good relations with the boss.
58
22%
48%
25%
5%
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Average
17. Your relation with your subordinate
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Excellent 30 29.70
Very Good 54 53.47
Good 17 16.83
Average 0 0.00
Total 101 100
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 53.47% i.e., 54 respondents says that their relation
with the subordinates is very good.
29.70% i.e., 30 respondents says that it is excellent and 16.83% i.e., 17
respondents says that the relation with the subordinates is good.
It was very much interesting to know that 100% of the Officers said that their
relations with their subordinates are good.
59
30%
53%
17%0%
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Average
18. Boss encourages you to approach him frequently for his advice and help
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 29 28.71
Agree 63 62.38
Disagree 6 5.94
Strongly Disagree 3 2.97
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows that 62.38% i.e., 63 respondents agree that their boss
encourages them to approach him frequently for his advice and help, 28.71% i.e., 29
respondents strongly agree with it.
5.94% i.e., 6 respondents disagree with it and 2.97% i.e., 3 respondents
strongly disagree that their boss encourages them to approach him frequently for his
advice and help.
60
29%
62%
6% 3%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
19.. You are helping your subordinates to become aware of some of their own
strengths
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 33 32.67
Agree 65 64.36
Disagree 1 0.99
Strongly Disagree 2 1.98
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table reveals 64.36% i.e., 65 respondents agree that they are
helping their subordinates to become aware of some of their own strengths, 32.67%
i.e., 33 respondents strongly agree with it, 1.98% i.e., 2 respondents strongly disagree
with the above statement.
And 0.99% i.e., 1 respondent out of the whole sample disagree with that
he/she is helping subordinates to become aware of some of their own strengths.
61
33%
64%
1%
2%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
20. You clearly prescribe standards of behavior to be followed in your work unit
ATTRIBUTES NO. OF RESPONDENTS % OF RESPONDANTS
Strongly Agree 23 22.77
Agree 67 66.34
Disagree 10 9.90
Strongly Disagree 1 0.99
Total 101 100.00
Interpretation:
The above table shows 66.34% i.e., 67 respondents agree, 22.77% i.e., 23
respondents strongly agree, 9.9% i.e., 10 respondents disagree that they clearly
prescribe standards of behaviour to be followed in their work unit.
And only 0.99% i.e., 1 respondent says he / she strongly disagree that he/she
clearly prescribes standards of behaviour to be followed in work unit.
89.11% of the Officers are agreeing that they clearly prescribe standards of
behaviour to be followed in their work unit.
62
23%
66%
10% 1%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
63
Crosstabs
Designation * 4.Scale of gradation
H0: There is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on scale of gradation is followed in HAL for PAR
Crosstab4.Scale of gradation Total
Highly Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisf
ied
Highly Dissatisf
ied
Designation
EngineerCount 0 23 2 1 26% within Designation
0.0% 88.5% 7.7% 3.8% 100.0%
ManagerCount 1 32 8 0 41% within Designation
2.4% 78.0% 19.5% 0.0% 100.0%
OfficerCount 0 34 4 2 40% within Designation
0.0% 85.0% 10.0% 5.0% 100.0%
TotalCount 1 89 14 3 107% within Designation
0.9% 83.2% 13.1% 2.8% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.944a 6 .429Likelihood Ratio 7.217 6 .301N of Valid Cases 107
a. 7 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .24.
From the above table chi square is not significant (sig. value is greater than 0.05), no need to reject null hypothesis. It means that there is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on scale of gradation is followed in HAL for PAR
64
Designation * 7.System of PAR
H0: There is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on the present system of PAR is too-time consuming
Crosstab7.System of PAR Total
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Designation
EngineerCount 3 14 7 2 26% within Designation
11.5% 53.8% 26.9% 7.7% 100.0%
ManagerCount 4 31 6 0 41% within Designation
9.8% 75.6% 14.6% 0.0% 100.0%
OfficerCount 0 29 11 0 40% within Designation
0.0% 72.5% 27.5% 0.0% 100.0%
TotalCount 7 74 24 2 107% within Designation
6.5% 69.2% 22.4% 1.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.483a 6 .036Likelihood Ratio 15.434 6 .017N of Valid Cases 107
a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .49.
From the above table chi square is significant (sig. value is less than 0.05), reject null hypothesis. It means that there is a significance difference between designation and their opinions on the present system of PAR is too-time consuming
65
Designation * 8.Ratings
H0: There is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on ratings based on subjective judgment
Crosstab8.Ratings Total
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Designation
EngineerCount 4 21 1 0 26% within Designation
15.4% 80.8% 3.8% 0.0% 100.0%
ManagerCount 3 36 1 1 41% within Designation
7.3% 87.8% 2.4% 2.4% 100.0%
OfficerCount 2 36 2 0 40% within Designation
5.0% 90.0% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%
TotalCount 9 93 4 1 107% within Designation
8.4% 86.9% 3.7% 0.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.241a 6 .644Likelihood Ratio 4.361 6 .628N of Valid Cases 107
a. 9 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .24.
From the above table chi square is not significant (sig. value is greater than 0.05), no need to reject null hypothesis. It means that there is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on ratings based on subjective judgment
66
Designation * 12.Quarterly task setting
H0: There is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on quarterly task setting and evaluation are done as per schedule
Crosstab12.Quarterly task setting Total
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Designation
EngineerCount 3 14 9 0 26% within Designation
11.5% 53.8% 34.6% 0.0% 100.0%
ManagerCount 2 16 21 2 41% within Designation
4.9% 39.0% 51.2% 4.9% 100.0%
OfficerCount 3 30 6 1 40% within Designation
7.5% 75.0% 15.0% 2.5% 100.0%
TotalCount 8 60 36 3 107% within Designation
7.5% 56.1% 33.6% 2.8% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 14.923a 6 .021Likelihood Ratio 16.082 6 .013N of Valid Cases 107
a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .73.
From the above table chi square is significant (sig. value is less than 0.05), reject null hypothesis. It means that there is a significance difference between designation and their opinions on quarterly task setting and evaluation are done as per schedule
67
Designation * 15.IA Appraises
H0: There is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on IA appraises performance evaluating quarterly task sheets and PAR
Crosstab
15.IA Appraises Total
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree
Strongly Disagre
e
Designation
EngineerCount 0 22 3 1 26
% within Designation
0.0% 84.6% 11.5% 3.8% 100.0%
ManagerCount 3 27 8 3 41% within Designation
7.3% 65.9% 19.5% 7.3% 100.0%
OfficerCount 2 32 2 4 40% within Designation
5.0% 80.0% 5.0% 10.0% 100.0%
TotalCount 5 81 13 8 107
% within Designation
4.7% 75.7% 12.1% 7.5% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.054a 6 .316Likelihood Ratio 8.456 6 .207N of Valid Cases 107
a. 9 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.21.
From the above table chi square is not significant (sig. value is greater than 0.05), no need to reject null hypothesis. It means that there is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on IA appraises performance evaluating quarterly task sheets and PAR
68
Designation * 18.Relation with subordinate
H0: There is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on relation with subordinate
Crosstab
18.Relation with subordinate Total
Excellent
Very Good
Good Average
Designation
EngineerCount 5 10 11 0 26
% within Designation
19.2% 38.5% 42.3% 0.0% 100.0%
ManagerCount 5 27 9 0 41% within Designation
12.2% 65.9% 22.0% 0.0% 100.0%
OfficerCount 4 22 13 1 40% within Designation
10.0% 55.0% 32.5% 2.5% 100.0%
TotalCount 14 59 33 1 107
% within Designation
13.1% 55.1% 30.8% 0.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.101a 6 .312Likelihood Ratio 7.433 6 .283N of Valid Cases 107
a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .24.
From the above table chi square is not significant (sig. value is greater than 0.05), no need to reject null hypothesis. It means that there is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on relation with subordinate
69
Designation * 19.Boss encourages
H0: There is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on boss encouragement
Crosstab
19.Boss encouragement Total
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Designation
EngineerCount 6 18 1 1 26% within Designation
23.1% 69.2% 3.8% 3.8% 100.0%
ManagerCount 6 26 8 1 41% within Designation
14.6% 63.4% 19.5% 2.4% 100.0%
OfficerCount 3 35 2 0 40% within Designation
7.5% 87.5% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0%
TotalCount 15 79 11 2 107% within Designation
14.0% 73.8% 10.3% 1.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.328a 6 .079Likelihood Ratio 11.787 6 .067N of Valid Cases 107
a. 7 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .49.
From the above table chi square is not significant (sig. value is greater than 0.05), no need to reject null hypothesis. It means that there is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on boss encouragement
70
Designation * 22.Instructions to subordinate
H0: There is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on give clear instructions to subordinate
Crosstab22.Instructions to subordinate Total
Strongly Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Designation
EngineerCount 5 20 0 1 26% within Designation
19.2% 76.9% 0.0% 3.8% 100.0%
ManagerCount 19 20 2 0 41% within Designation
46.3% 48.8% 4.9% 0.0% 100.0%
OfficerCount 17 23 0 0 40% within Designation
42.5% 57.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
TotalCount 41 63 2 1 107% within Designation
38.3% 58.9% 1.9% 0.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.839a 6 .066Likelihood Ratio 12.597 6 .050N of Valid Cases 107
a. 6 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .24.
From the above table chi square is not significant (sig. value is greater than 0.05), no need to reject null hypothesis. It means that there is no significance difference between designation and their opinions on give clear instructions to subordinate
71
Regression
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .398a .158 .134 .633
a. Predictors: (Constant), 21.Behaviour in work unit, 12.Quarterly task setting, 18.Relation with subordinate
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 7.739 3 2.580 6.444 .000b
Residual 41.233 103 .400
Total 48.972 106
a. Dependent Variable: 3.Evaluation of officersb. Predictors: (Constant), 21.Behaviour in work unit, 12.Quarterly task setting, 18.Relation with subordinate
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) 1.558 .308 5.066 .000
12.Quarterly task setting
.283 .096 .272 2.935 .004
18.Relation with subordinate
.241 .095 .235 2.525 .013
21Standards followed in work unit
.047 .104 .043 .457 .649
a. Dependent Variable: 3.EvaluatSion of officers
The required regression line is Evaluation of officers performance =1.558+0.283(Quarterly task setting) + 0.241(Relation with subordinate) + 0.047(Standards followed in work unit)
72
CHAPTER – VI
DISCUSSIONS & CONCLUSIONS
DISCUSSIONS:
It is observed that most of the Officers are satisfied with the system of PARs
which is followed in HAL.
Most of the Officers agree that the system of evaluation of Officers’
performance on quarterly basis is good.
The scale of gradation followed in HAL is satisfied by most of the Officers.
So, it requires no changes.
Defining improvement task for each quarter may be very difficult. Further the
marks assigned to improvement task can be reduced.
Officers are satisfied to receive the feed back by their boss.
The Officers are equally agreed and disagree that the present PAR system is
too time consuming, this is a contradictory situation.
Most of the Officers are agreeing with the fact that the ratings are some times
based on subjective judgement.
60% of the Officers are disagreeing with the statement that the training is
given subsequently as recommended in PAR.
It is observed that more than 80% of the officers agree that the present PAR
system should be replaced with online PAR system.
More than 50% Officers agreed that the Quarterly task setting & evaluation
are done as per schedule.
73
Most of the Officers are agreeing that the subordinates are rated based upon
his/her performance on the other hand Officers said that the ratings are based
on subjective judgement. These two sentences are contradictory.
Self-appraisal is taken into consideration while performance is appraised.
Most of the Officers said that their IA appraises their performance while
evaluating the quarterly task & PAR.
95% of the officers are having very good relations with their boss and 100% of
the Officers are having very good relations with their subordinates.
Almost all the Officers are fully aware of PAR system followed in HAL.
Most of the Officers said that their boss encourages them to approach him
frequently for advice and help.
Most of the Officers said that they help their subordinates to become aware of
some of their own strengths.
Most of the officers said that they give clear instruction to their subordinates
that what should and what should not be done.
More than 50% agree that they do not hesitate to criticize their subordinates
for their bad performance even if they feel offended and do not accept their
feed back.
It is found that the Officers are learning new things and they are improving
their skills in their present discipline.
Bosses are concerned about their subordinates and are communicating
feedback to their subordinates on their performance.
74
Most of the Officers said that re-introduction of IMS scheme motivated them
to excel in their work area.
It is observed that the policy of conducting written test, service eligibility for
next grade and deferring of promotion on bases of LWP require no change.
Most of the Officers agree that there should be job rotation on promotion.
It is observed that the procedure followed for the promotion of Officers is not
satisfactory one of the reasons could be delay in processing of promotions.
The present PAR system can be replaced with 360 degrees PAR system as the
360 degree system gives the correct picture above the Officer and PAR system
should be made Online.
Feed back should be given to the Officers on their performance whether it is
good or bad so that they can improve themselves.
The marks assigned for the improvement task can be reduced.
Steps should be taken to ensure that the training recommended in PAR is
given to the officers and more training programmes are organized.
It should be ensured that the Promotion processes are carried out as per
schedule so that Promotion Orders are issued in time.
The Question Banks which were used for various disciplines in the online
written test should be revised and made more relevant to the disciplines.
75
After taking a hard look at the performance management system at Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd, what I have experienced is that the working conditions are very
good. There is good friendly relation prevailing between the employees. Even the
subordinates respect the top management.
But what I have noticed is that there is a lack of job satisfaction among the
employees.
I would like to give few suggestions, through which, I guess the organization
can improve its standard.
1. The management should give its employees more challenging work.
2. The organization can conduct the appraisal of their employee’s performance
twice in a year instead of doing it once in a year.
3. The management should give regular feedback of the employee’s
performance. So that the employees can have the idea of how they are
performing.
4. The organization can go for 360 degrees appraisal method, which I think will
be the most effective than the method they are using at the moment.
CONCLUSION
76
The study is done to know the satisfaction level of employee’s performance on
their present job. Performance appraisal is the evaluation of employee’s performance
at his present job and also process by which the employee’s strengths and weakness
are identified to improve the performance on the present jobs.
The basic purpose of performance appraisal is to know how well the employee
is performing on the job, and to establish a plan for their improvement. To find out
this, I have made a detailed study at Hindustan Aeronautics limited, Balanagar where
the performance appraisal system is easy to understand.
In the organization the top management provides awards and rewards to the
part of performance appraisal system in sales department. The employees who are
reached their highest target regarding sales, those persons will get awards and
rewards.
In Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Balanagar the frequency of the system can
also be increased, where the confidentiality must be strictly maintained, and rating
should be made without any bias-recognition at par with the employee’s performance
can be made and the participation of the top management can make the performance
appraisal system more effective. This performance appraisal gives a clear idea about
good relation between top management and employees.
Thus the appraisal system in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Balanagar
maintained very effectively. The outcomes also has given efficiently.
However the above study has been successfully understanding and
highlighting performance appraisal system in the organization.
77
BIBLIOGRAPHY
78
1. P. Subba Rao, “Essentials of Human Resource Management And Industrial
Relations”, 3rd Edition, Himalaya Publishing House.
2. K. Aswathappa, “Human Resource And Personnel Management”, 3rd Edition,
Tata McGraw Hill.
3. C.R.Kothari (1990), Research Methodology Methods and Techniques, Second
edition – New Age International Publishers, New Delhi.
4. Human Capital Journal.
Websites:
1. www.hal-india.com
2. www.google.com
3. www.citehr.com
4. www.managementparadise.com
5. www.citeops.com
79
As a part of my MBA Curriculum, I am doing this project titled “A Study on
Performance Management System of Officers at HAL, Hyderabad”. To do my
project successfully I need your cooperation by way of filling this questionnaire for
which I will be very thankful to you. I assure you that this is purely for academic
purpose and your responses will be kept confidential.
EMPLOYEE DETAILS:
Name :
Age :
Department :
Designation :
Q1. Since how long have you been working for HAL?
(a) for past 0-2 years (b) for past 2-5 years
(c) for past 5-10 years (d) for past 11 years & above [ ]
Q2. The system of PAR which is followed in HAL
(a) Highly satisfied (b) Satisfied
(c) Dissatisfied (d) Highly dissatisfied[ ]
Q3. Evaluation of officers’ performance on quarterly basis
(a) Excellent (b) Very Good
(c) Good (d) Average [ ]
Q4. The scale of gradation which is followed in HAL for PAR
80
(a) Highly satisfied (b) Satisfied
(c) Dissatisfied (d) Highly dissatisfied[ ]
Q5. Devotion of 40% of marks in quarterly task sheets for improvement task
(a) Excellent (b) Very Good
(c) Good (d) Average [ ]
Q6. Receiving of feedback on your performance by your boss
(a) Highly satisfied (b) Satisfied
(c) Dissatisfied (d) Highly dissatisfied[ ]
Q7. The present system of PAR is too-time consuming
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q8. Ratings are sometimes seen as based on subjective judgement
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q9. Training is given subsequently as recommended in PAR
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q10. Replacing present PAR system with online PAR system
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
81
Q11. If your boss brings out while giving feedback that your performance is not up
to the mark then how would you react? (Tick as many as possible)
(a) Take feedback positively.
(b) Try to improve on shortcomings.
(c) Try to convince boss that he has not done assessment correctly.
(d) Take feedback negatively. [ ]
Q12. Quarterly task setting & evaluation are done as per schedule
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q13. Subordinates are rated based upon his/her performance?
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q14. Self-appraisal is taken into consideration while performance is appraised
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q15. Your IA Appraises you about your performance while evaluating the quarterly
task sheets & PAR?
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q16. You are fully aware about the PAR system being followed in HAL
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
82
Q17. Your relations with your boss
(a) Excellent (b) Very Good
(c) Good (d) Average [ ]
Q18. Your relations with your subordinate
(a) Excellent (b) Very Good
(c) Good (d) Average [ ]
Q19. Boss encourages you to approach him frequently for his advice and help
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q20. You are helping your subordinates to become aware of some of their own
strengths
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q21. You clearly prescribe standards of behaviour to be followed in your work unit
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q22. Give clear instructions to your subordinate what should or should not be done
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q23. I communicate strong feelings to subordinates without caring whether this will
affect their morale
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q24. I try to set an example to my subordinates by my own behaviour
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
83
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q25. I do not hesitate to criticize my subordinates for their bad performance even if
they feel offended and do not accept my feedback
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q26. I am available to my subordinates to solve their problems
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q27. I enjoy my role very much because of the tremendous opportunities for my
professional development here
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q28. I do only routine things and have learnt nothing new
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q29. I am slowly forgetting all that I learnt in my discipline
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q30. Are you receiving feedback on your performance?
(a) Yes (b) No [ ]
Q31. If you are writing PARs as IA/RA then, on what basis are you rating your
subordinates as Cat - A, Cat - B or Cat - C?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
84
Q32. If you are filling PAR as IA/RA, are you giving feedback to your
subordinates?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q33. Are you satisfied with the system of PAR which is followed in HAL? Justify.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q34. If you feel there should be some modifications in the PAR System, what all
the changes do you want to make?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q35. The promotion policy of the organization
(a) Excellent (b) Very Good
(c) Good (d) Average [ ]
Q36. Re-introduction of Internal Merit Selection (IMS) motivates you to excel in
your work area.
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q37. The written test is helping officers to improve their knowledge
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
85
Q38. The policy of serving 3yrs. & 4yrs in the lower grade for promotion under
IMS & DPC respectively
(a) Excellent (b) Very Good
(c) Good (d) Average [ ]
Q39. The promotion should be deferred based upon the ‘Leave without pay’
(a) Strongly agree (b) Agree
(c) Disagree (d) Strongly disagree [ ]
Q40. The procedure/process which is followed for promoting of Officers
(a) Excellent (b) Very Good
(c) Good (d) Average [ ]
Thank you
86