International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research...

1732

Available online through - http://ijifr.com/searchjournal.aspx

©IJIFR 2015.All Rights Reserved

www.ijifr.com

International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research ISSN: 2347-1697

Volume 3 Issue 5 January 2016 Original Paper

Abstract

The Oriental Fire General Insurance Company Limited was incorporated

at Bombay on 12th September, 1947. To reflect the gamut of the operations of the Company, the name of the Company was changed in

May, 1984 from ‘The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited’ to ‘The Oriental Insurance Company Limited’ (OICL) and at present the OICL is a public sector Company. The Company deals in all kinds of non-life insurance business. Performance appraisal in one form or the other is one of the oldest and most universal practices of HRD. The objective of the study is to analyse the effect of work related variables on performance of insurance personnel in the OICL and to provide suitable suggestions for the improvement of practices of performance appraisal in the company.

1. Introduction

Organisations are manned by the men. It is through manpower that goals are set and

objectives are achieved. The performance of an organisation is, thus, dependent upon the

sum total of the performance of its employees. According to Peter Drucker “an

organisaton is like a tune, it is not constituted by individual sounds but by their

synthesis”.i The success of an Organisation, therefore, depends on its ability to

accurately measure the performance of its employees and use these measurements

Effect of Work-related Variables on

Performance Appraisal of Personnel of Oriental

Insurance Company Limited: A Case study of

Regional Offices in Punjab and Haryana Paper ID IJIFR/ V3/ E5/ 048 Page No. 1732-1748 Subject Area Commerce

Keywords

Self-Improvement, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Improvement

Practices, Regional Offices, Punjab And Haryana, Employees, Confidential

Reports DO’s And BO’s,

1st Manoj Walia

Assistant Professor

Government College, Ambala Cantt

2nd

Dr. Shagun Ahuja

Assistant Professor,

Department of Commerce

R.G. Government College, Saha, (Ambala)

1733

ISSN: 2347-1697

International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research (IJIFR)

Volume - 3, Issue -5, January 2016

Continuous 29th Edition, Page No.:1732-1748

Manoj Walia, Dr. Shagun Ahuja:: Effect of Work-related Variables on Performance Appraisal of Personnel of Oriental Insurance Company Limited- A Case study of Regional Offices in Punjab and Haryana

objectively; in order to optimize the personnel’s performance, as they are the most vital resource in the organisation. The performance of an employee, as his resultant behaviour

on task, can be observed and evaluated. Therefore, performance refers to the

contribution made by an individual in the accomplishment of the organizational

objectives. The task performed is measured through a combination of quantity, quality,

time and cost of work. Employees do not learn, unless, they are given feedback on the

results of their actions. For learning to take place, feedback should be both regular and

frequent, so that corrective actions should be taken for the failures. In order to facilitate

this performance appraisal system provides management, with an opportunity to recall

and give feedback to the employees as to how they are doing on the job and also that

they can correct their mistakes and acquire new skills.

The Oriental Fire General Insurance Company Limited was incorporated at

Bombay on 12th

September, 1947. The Company was incorporated as a subsidiary of

Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Limited, a pioneer among life

insurance companies registered in India with the main aim of securing the community

by providing protection to liability and property. To reflect the gamut of the operations

of the Company, the name of the Company was changed in May, 1984 from ‘The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited’ to ‘The Oriental Insurance Company Limited’ (OICL) and at present the OICL is a public sector Company. The Company deals in all kinds of non-life insurance business. The business of the Company

varies from the small insurance covers to insurance cover of big projects. As the

Government of India undertaking, the Company enjoys the reputation of possessing all

round financial strength as reflected by its capital base of Rs. 80 Crores and reserves of

Rs. 1000 Crores in the year 2002. The Company progressed and was a close competitor

for the top position amongst general insurance companies operating in India until it was

taken over by government and nationalized. It created its position in the country by

providing dedicated insurance services to the community. At the time of nationalisation

in 1973, the Company’s Gross Direct Premium Income was Rs. 58 Crores and for the Financial Year 2006-07 the Company’s Gross Direct Premium Income was Rs. 4020.78 Crores. The Company is also known all over for its underwriting expertise and

professional management. The Company has now grown into a vast network of over

1000 offices – 18 Regional Offices, 257 Divisional Offices and nearly 750 branches

spread all over India. The Company also operates in Nepal, Dubai and Kuwait. It has a

large reservoir of manpower comprising of 20,266 employees, a part from the agency

force, the Company also possesses the technical expertise and financial capability to

underwrite a vast range of General Insurance Business regardless of the complexities

and magnitude of risks involved. The Company has a pre-efficiency of working hand in

hand with other agencies involved in socio-economic development of the country. Even

though OICL started functioning after nationalization with the initial handicap of

shifting its Head Office from Bombay to Delhi, the Company proved to be resilient and

continued to offer superiors client services through its professionalism and has not only

1734

ISSN: 2347-1697





managed its affairs in India well but also expanded in foreign markets of many countries

of the world.

2. Scope Of The Study

In the present study the performance appraisal practices of OICL in relation to

the work related variables have been analysed. The locales of the study were the

Regional Offices of Punjab and Haryana. The RO of Haryana situated at Ambala

Cantonment and covers the BO’s and DO’s of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. The RO of Punjab was situated at Chandigarh and covers the DOs and

BOs of Punjab and Chandigarh. For the purpose of present study the 21 DO’s and 58 BO’s all over the Punjab (including Chandigarh) and Haryana States were the part of the

study.

3. Review Of Literature

K.K. Jacob (2005) examined the management opinion regarding worker’s expression of grievances, the impact of grievances on the efficiency and productivity of

workers and issues causing grievances and how to redress these grievances.ii G.V. M.

Srimannarayana (2006) in his study makes an attempt to explore Human Resource

management practices prevailing in small business. The present study was carried out in

41 small business units at Jamshedpur. The major objective of the study was to find out

the HRM practices with respect to Human Resource planning, recruitment, selection,

training and development, performance appraisal, promotions, employee compensation,

and employee relation prevalent in the small businesses.iii

Sushmita Biswal Waraich

and Gopa Bhardwaj (2007) studied that in this changing world scenario, HR

professionals must have certain additional differentiating skills abilities qualities etc. and

business related competencies which could be the drivers of change for HR profession.iv

Charanjeev Singh and R.K Sharma (2009) has suggested that the management of the

organization must ensure that the element of training in the organization must contribute

to the various competitive strategies so that the employees are able to implement

different skills.v Akhila Kunche , Ravi Kumar Puli , Sunitha Guniganti , Danaiah

Puli (2011) were of the view that effective training is considered as an important factor

in determining the efficiency of an organization which depends upon the capability of its

employees. For training evaluation to be truly effective, the training and development

itself must be appropriate for the person and the situation.vi

Gerald D. Gyamfi (2012)

found that that there was a positive relationship between the selection requirements and

the job performance of the personnel during the five-year period spanning 2004-2008. It

was revealed from the study that the Ghana Police Service used to be called Ghana

Police Force during the colonial era. The main aim of the police force was to protect the

colonial regime.vii

Soleyman Iranzadeh, Khadijeh Bahrami (2013) investigated the

effects of knowledge management in increasing the creativity of the employees who

worked in west Azerbijan Water and Sewage Organization (WSO).viii

1735

ISSN: 2347-1697





Inference Drawn from Review of Literature

The review of above analyzed literature reveals that there is no study on the effect of

work related variables on the performance appraisal practices for insurance personnel,

which prompted the researcher to analyze this uncovered area of research.

4. Objective Of The Study

The objective of the study is to analyse the effect of work related variables on the

performance appraisal practices followed in the OICL and to provide suitable

suggestions for the improvement in performance appraisal practices in the company.

5. Research Methodology

The present study relates to the performance appraisal practices followed by the

OICL. At the time of data collection there were 944 employees working in Punjab

(including Chandigarh) and 414 in Haryana state. Sample of the employees was drawn

on the basis of stratified random sampling technique and while drawing the sample, care

was taken that all the levels of officers get adequate representation. The primary data

was collected by administering an Interview Schedule which included the different

queries relating to the selected parameters of the study. Employees of the DO’s and

BO’s were also included in the sample. The sample was taken according to the stratified

random sampling by having 33.33 per cent from the first three levels, the fourth level

was ignored due to the least effect of training practices on this level, only one category

in this level was effected by the training practices and that also very minutely as the sub

staff can only be promoted to Level III and 36 of such employees who were promoted to

Level III from the Level IV were included in the sample of the Level III. Sample size

was 390 covering Punjab including Chandigarh and Haryana with all levels. Secondary

data was collected from the records available at regional offices and Head office, which

include annual report, policy guidelines, books, magazines, journals and many other

publications of the Company. Before analysis of the data it was classified and tabulated.

Data analysed through cross tabulation using the statistical parameters to see the effect

of various parameters on the Company’s performance.

Work Related Variables:

1. Work Experience

2. Total Years of service

3. Number of Years in Present Position

1736

ISSN: 2347-1697





5 Performance Appraisal System in OICL

The efficiency and success of an organization depends entirely on the quality of its

personnel. This is more and more evident as we go up the ladder of managerial cadre.

Merit, therefore, is an important criterion while deciding promotions in any cadre of

employees. For the assessment of the merit of an employee, the Company has been

having a system of Confidential Reporting, which is meant to serve three basic purposes.

Record of work: It must give a factual and complete statement of the functions,

experience and achievements or failures of the employee concerned and forms a

permanent record of his work; in the organization on a yearly basis.

Analysis of ability: It brings out systematically the particular skills, knowledge and

ability/weakness of the employee with a view to further development or corrects them as

the case may be so that, to the extent possible, the employee could be helped to make

himself more effective and useful to the organization.

Future Promotions: It helps the organisation in its search amongst its own employees

for competent and able candidates to fill the various posts from time to time while

identifying such persons as possessing or who can develop the necessary qualifications

and skill for such posts. With a view to help reporting, the standard confidential report

forms have been introduced. While designing the forms an endeavor has been made that

they provide the following information besides fulfilling the objectives mentioned

above.

To highlight both strong points and shortcomings which will form the basis for

individual counseling;

To ascertain the fields in which the employee needs or could benefit from,

training to improve his usefulness; and

To locate and deal with unsuitable personnel

The following Confidential Reports from have been introduced for various

categories of employees.

The Confidential Report Forms applicable to Class I Officers, along with

instructions for completing these forms are given in Annexure

The Self-Appraisal Forms for Officers of the rank of Managers and Deputy

Managers, along with instructions for completing these forms are given in

Annexure.

The, Confidential Report forms applicable to SCS Staff along with instructions

for completing these forms are given in Annexure.

The Confidential Report forms for Development Officers along with instructions

are given in Annexure.

The Reporting Officer is the one under whom the employee has worked for at

least 3 calendar months in the year of report. In effect each Officer under whom

the employee has worked for at least three calendar months in the year of report

would be entitled to write the report. Similar conditions shall apply for

determining the reviewing Officers also.

1737

ISSN: 2347-1697





For the purpose of obtaining complete information in relation to the effect of work

related variables on the performance appraisal of personnel of OICL, following queries

were made from the employees of OICL:

5.1 Performance Appraisal And Feedback

Performance appraisal must convey to the employees how well they had performed on

the established goals. It is also desirable to have these goals and performance measures

mutually set between the employees and their boss. Without proper two-way feedback

about one’s efforts and its effect on performance, there is a risk of decreasing the

employee’s motivation. However, the development is also an equally important issue along with the issue of feedback,

ix development here means the areas where an

employee is having the weaknesses and feedback denotes the communication of these

weaknesses.x

Table 1: Performance appraisal provides me feedback to better my performance in a bid to

improve my rating over others vis-a-vis work related variables

Attributes/

Responses Ranks

Strongly

Agree Agree

Un

decided

Dis

agree

Strongly

Disagree p

Work

Experience in

OICL

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

1

(25.00)

47

(25.00)

45

(25.40)

5

(23.80)

3

(75.00)

88

(46.80)

90

(50.80)

10

(47.60)

0

(0.00)

16

(8.50)

17

(9.60)

-

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

32

(17.00)

19

(10.70)

4

(19.00)

0

(0.00)

5

(2.70)

6

(3.40)

2

(9.50)

0.653

Total years of

service

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

0

(0.00)

43

(23.20)

49

(28.20)

6

(20.70)

2

(100.0)

91

(49.20)

83

(47.70)

15

(51.70)

0

(0.00)

16

(8.60)

15

(8.60)

2

(6.90)

0

(0.00)

32

(17.30)

20

(11.50)

3

(10.30)

0

(0.00)

3

(1.60)

7

(4.00)

3

(10.30)

0.443

No. of years in

the present

position

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

16 – 20 years

10

(16.10)

20

(23.00)

30

(37.00)

38

(23.80)

40

(64.50)

45

(51.70)

31

(38.30)

75

(46.90)

4

(6.50)

3

(3.40)

5

(6.20)

21

(13.10)

5

(8.10)

13

(14.90)

13

(16.00)

24

(15.00)

3

(4.80)

6

(6.90)

2

(2.50)

2

(1.30)

0.006

Source: Computed from primary data. Figures in parentheses are percentages. p value significant at 0.05 level.

Table 1a: Pearson’s correlation between the variables

Interval by

Interval Pearson's R

Value Asymp. Std.

Error

Approx. T Approx. Sig.

0.003 0.053 0.053 0.958

(-) 0.002 0.052 (-) 0.040 0.968

(-) 0.011 0.048 (-) 0.211 0.833

On enquiry into the aspect that performance appraisal provides the feedback to

the employee to better their performance in the bid of improving his rating over others,

in the Table 1 it was elicited from the responses that all the four respondents with work

1738

ISSN: 2347-1697





experience less than 10 years and the two respondents with less than 10 years of total

service supported this statement. In the other three categories of both these variables, as

in the previous query, no significant variation was found in favourable responses as high

majority of respondents (above 70.00 per cent) with more than 10 years of working

experience and more than 10 years of total service agreed or strongly agreed with the

poser. On the basis of numbers of years in present position, 80.60 per cent of

respondents with less than 5 years in present position, 74.70 per cent of respondents with

6-10 years in present position, 75.30 per cent of respondents from 11-15 years in present

position and 70.70 per cent of respondents in 16-20 years in present position provided

the supporting responses to the assertion. Statistically, significant association was found

between the variable of number of years in present position and the statement.

The Pearson correlation between the variables is illustrated in the Table 1(a), it

can be seen that the correlation was positive. On closer analysis it was found that work

experience and total years of service had presented significantly high relationship

whereas the variable of number of years in present position demonstrated moderate

relationship.

5.2 Performance Appraisal And Self Improvement

The performance appraisals bring out the strengths and deficiencies of the rate. A

discussion between the rater and the rate conducted in a spirit of cooperation and mutual

understanding, gives the chance to employees to have an insight on their performances

in the general set up of the organisation. These discussions, give chance to the

employees to take suitable steps for improving their performance and correcting their

shortcomings. Performance appraisal answers the questions of the employees like ‘How am I doing?’ and ‘Where Do I Stand?’ Performance appraisal helps in the manpower development in another way also, as performance appraisal helps to spot out the

person’s ability to see an Organisational problem, devise ways of attacking it, translate

his ideas into action, incorporate new information as it arises and carry his plans through

the results.xi

Table 2: Performance appraisal provides an opportunity to the employee for self-review

vis-a-vis work related variables

Attributes/

Responses Ranks

Strongly

Agree Agree

Un

decided

Dis

agree

Strongly

Disagree P

Work

Experience in

OICL

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

1

(25.00)

49

(26.10)

43

(24.30)

2

(9.50)

1

(25.00)

97

(51.60)

100

(56.50)

14

(66.70)

1

(25.00)

16

(8.50)

10

(5.60)

2

(9.50)

1

(25.00)

7

(3.70)

12

(6.80)

2

(9.50)

0

(0.00)

19

(10.10)

12

(6.80)

1

(4.80)

0.345

Total years of

service

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

0

(0.00)

50

(27.00)

1

(50.00)

96

(51.90)

0

(0.00)

15

(8.10)

1

(50.00)

7

(3.80)

0

(0.00)

17

(9.20)

0.080

1739

ISSN: 2347-1697





21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

42

(24.10)

3

(10.30)

95

(54.60)

20

(69.00)

12

(6.90)

2

(6.90)

10

(5.70)

4

(13.80)

15

(8.60)

0

(0.00)

No. of years in

the present

position

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

16 – 20 years

12

(19.40)

21

(24.10)

21

(25.90)

41

(25.60)

39

(62.90)

44

(50.60)

39

(48.10)

90

(56.30)

4

(6.50)

8

(9.20)

8

(9.90)

9

(5.60)

1

(1.60)

10

(11.50)

6

(7.40)

5

(3.10)

6

(9.70)

4

(4.60)

7

(8.60)

15

(9.40)

0 .215

Source: Computed from primary data. Figures in parentheses are percentages. p value significant at 0.05

level.

Table 2 (a): Pearson’s correlation between the variables

Interval by

Interval

6 Pears

on's

R

Value Asymp. Std.

Error


(-) 0.007 0.049 (-) 0.133 0.895

0.012 0.047 0.240 0.810

(-) 0.021 0.050 (-) 0.418 0.677

The analysis of the Table 2 is indicative that two respondents with less than 10

years of work experience had given their consent to the aspect, one of the respondents

remained undecided and remaining one respondent disagreed with the view. In all the

other three categories of this variable, the high majority of respondents (above 75.00 per

cent) either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. On the basis of total years of

service, the high majority of respondents (79.30 per cent) with 31-40 years of total

service but also the respondents (78.90 per cent) with 11-20 years of total service and

the respondents (78.70 per cent) with 21-30 years of total service supported the

assertion. When analyzed from the point of view of number of years in present position,

again, the high majority of respondents (above 70.00 per cent) either agreed or strongly

agreed with the facet. The overall trend clarified that performance appraisal provided the

opportunity to the employees for self-review. Statistically, no significant association was

found between the variables and the aspect.

The Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation as presented in the Table 2 (a) indicates that the correlation between the variables and responses of the employees was

positive. Further on the closer look it was found that the variables namely work

experience and total years of service demonstrated high relationship with the responses

of the employees whereas the variable of number of years in the present position

substantiated moderate relationship.

5.3 Confidential Reports (CRs)

The CRs are maintained mostly in Government departments, though its

application in the industry is also cannot be ruled out. Called the Annual Confidential

Report (ACR), this approach evaluates mainly the 14 items 1) Attendance; 2) Self

1740

ISSN: 2347-1697





Expression; 3) Ability to work with others; 4) Leadership; 5) Initiative; 6) Technical

ability; 7) Ability to understand new material; 8) Ability to reason; 9) Originality; 10)

Areas of work that suits the person best; 11) Judgment; 12) Integrity; 13) Responsibility;

and 14) Any defect. So it was asked from the employees whether the performance

appraisal was effectively done through these reports.

Table 3: Performance appraisal is done through the annual confidential report prepared by

immediate boss vis-a-vis work related variables

Attributes/

Responses Ranks

Strongly

Agree Agree

Un

decided

Dis

agree

Strongly

Disagree p

Work

Experience in

OICL

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

1

(25.00)

61

(32.40)

44

(24.90)

5

(23.80)

2

(50.00)

87

(46.30)

90

(50.80)

13

(61.90)

1

(25.00)

18

(9.60)

19

(10.70)

1

(4.80)

0

(0.00)

5

(2.70)

14

(7.90)

1

(4.80)

0

(0.00)

17

(9.00)

10

(5.60)

1

(4.80)

0.461

Total years of

service

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

0

(0.00)

60

(32.40)

45

(25.90)

6

(20.70)

2

(100.0)

87

(47.00)

86

(49.40)

17

(58.60)

0

(0.00)

18

(9.70)

17

(9.80)

4

(13.80)

0

(0.00)

5

(2.70)

13

(7.50)

2

(6.90)

0

(0.00)

15

(8.10)

13

(7.50)

0

(0.00)

0.466

No. of years in

the present

position

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

16 – 20 years

16

(25.80)

33

(37.90)

20

(24.70)

42

(26.30)

35

(56.50)

39

(44.80)

41

(50.60)

77

(48.10)

4

(6.50)

9

(10.30)

6

(7.40)

20

(12.50)

3

(4.80)

3

(3.40)

9

(11.10)

5

(3.10)

4

(6.50)

3

(3.40)

5

(6.20)

16

(10.00)

0.116


level.

Table 3a: Pearson’s correlation between the variables

Interval by


Value Asymp. Std.

Error


0.024 0.048 0.473 0.636

0.038 0.046 0.747 0.455

0.083 0.049 1.633 0.103

The data presented in the Table 3 is indicating that the high majority of

respondents irrespective of any variable either agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement that performance appraisal were done through the annual confidential report

prepared by the immediate boss. High majority of respondents (75.00 per cent) with

work experience up to 10 years were in agreement with the statement and remaining

respondents in this category remained undecided about the view. More of the

respondents (85.70 per cent) with 31-40 years of work experience had given their

consent to the aspect. Both of the respondents with less than 10 years of service agreed

that performance appraisal was done through the annual confidential report prepared by

1741

ISSN: 2347-1697





the immediate boss. The proportion of the respondents who remained undecided

increased with the increase in the total years of service. Again no significant variations

were found in the responses received from the employees on the basis number of years

in the present position, as high majority of respondents favored the statement in all the

categories of this variable. Statistically, no significant association was found between

the variables and the query.

The data relating to coefficient of correlation as illustrated in the Table 3 (a)

indicates that all the variables were positively correlated with the responses of the

employees. On further analysis, it can be seen that the work experience presented the

moderate relationship with the responses of the employees and the variables of total

years of service and number of years in the present position substantiated low

relationship.

5.4 Merit Rating

Performance appraisal or merit rating means systematic evaluation of the personality

and performance of each employee by his supervisor or some other superior trained in the

techniques of merit rating. Various rating techniques are used for comparing individual

employees in the work group, in terms of personal qualities or deficiencies with the requirements

of their respective jobs. Dale Yoder quoted, “Performance appraisal includes all formal

procedures used to evaluate personalities and contributions and potentials of group members in a

working organisation. It is a continuous process to secure necessary information for making

correct and objective decisions regarding the employees”.xii

Table 4: While evaluating performance viz-a-viz targets constraints beyond control are

given consideration vis-a-vis work related variables

Attributes/

Responses

7 Rank

s

Strongly

Agree Agree

Un

decided

Dis

agree

Strongly

Disagree p

Work

Experience in

OICL

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

0

(0.00)

28

(14.90)

40

(22.60)

1

(4.80)

2

(50.00)

81

(43.10)

82

(46.30)

11

(52.40)

2

(50.00)

57

(30.30)

42

(23.70)

7

(33.30)

0

(0.00)

16

(8.50)

10

(5.60)

2

(9.50)

0

(0.00)

6

(3.20)

3

(1.70)

0

(0.00)

0.458

Total years of

service

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

0

(0.00)

27

(14.60)

40

(23.00)

2

(6.90)

2

(100.0)

81

(43.80)

81

(46.60)

12

(41.40)

0

(0.00)

56

(30.30)

40

(23.00)

12

(41.40)

0

(0.00)

15

(8.10)

11

(6.30)

2

(6.90)

0

(0.00)

6

(3.20)

2

(1.10)

1

(3.40)

0.275

No. of years

in the present

position

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

11

(17.70)

17

(19.50)

15

37

(59.70)

35

(40.20)

41

12

(19.40)

22

(25.30)

18

2

(3.20)

8

(9.20)

5

0

(0.00)

5

(5.70)

2

0.067

1742

ISSN: 2347-1697





16 – 20 years

(18.50)

26

(16.30)

(50.60)

63

(39.40)

(22.20)

56

(35.00)

(6.20)

13

(8.10)

(2.50)

2

(1.30)


level.


Interval by


Value Asymp. Std.

Error


(-) 0.083 0.047 (-) 1.637 0.102

(-) 0.044 0.050 (-) 0.861 0.390

0.079 0.047 1.569 0.118

The results of the data presented in the Table 4 were not strongly supporting the

statement. As when the employees were asked the question whether the constraints

beyond control were given consideration while evaluating their performance the

responses were not strongly in favour of the statement because the proportion of

undecided responses increased. These undecided responses were mainly received from

the two respondents with work experience less than 10 years, respondents (41.40 per

cent) with total years of service of 31-40 years and the respondents (35.00 per cent) with

16-20 years in present position. The possible reason could be the unawareness or

unwillingness of the respondents to respond to the query. Further, both of the

respondents with less than 10 years of total service were in agreement with the aspect.

On the basis of number of years in the present position, the maximum favouring

responses to the query were received from the respondents (77.40 per cent) with less

than 5 years in the present position, followed by the respondents (69.10 per cent) with

11-15 years in the present position. Statistically, no significant association was found

between the variables and the statement.

The relationship between the responses of the employees indicated by the

Pearson’s coefficient has been elicited in the Table 4 (a) it can be seen that though the relationship was positive but all the variables demonstrated low relationship with the

responses of the employees.

6. Conveying the remarks entered in CRs

A recent survey by the American Productivity and Quality Center found that

only 62.00 per cent of surveyed employees thought that their performance was evaluated

fairly. Commentators on the survey said that, they expected an even higher proportion of

employees dissatisfied with their reviews. Another recent study found that black

managers “often shrug off negative performance reviews from white supervisors”.

presumably on the assumption that they are biased.xiii

And research on ‘brown nosing’ found that employees who try to gain the favour of the boss gain a 4-5 per cent

advantage over those who rely upon performance alone.xiv

These headlines signal that

performance appraisal continues to be a very complex and tricky management task. Like

decisions about pay raises and promotions, performance appraisal often makes no one

happy. For this reason many times the superiors avoid to provide the feedback to the

1743

ISSN: 2347-1697





employees for their negative performance report. So it was asked that the confidential

report is whether conveyed to them if it is negative.

Table 5: Confidential report if negative is conveyed to the employees vis-a-vis work related

variables

Attributes/

Responses

8 Rank

s

Strongly

Agree Agree

Un

decided

Dis

agree

Strongly

Disagree p

Work

Experience in

OICL

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

0

(0.00)

30

(16.00)

33

(18.60)

2

(9.50)

0

(0.00)

53

(28.20)

58

(32.80)

7

(33.30)

0

(0.00)

30

(16.00)

22

(12.40)

4

(19.00)

4

(100.0)

64

(34.00)

47

(26.60)

5

(23.80)

0

(0.00)

11

(5.90)

17

(9.60)

3

(14.30)

0.163

Total years of

service

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

0

(0.00)

29

(15.70)

33

(19.00)

3

(10.30)

0

(0.00)

50

(27.00)

58

(33.30)

10

(34.50)

0

(0.00)

30

(16.20)

20

(11.50)

6

(20.70)

2

(100.0)

65

(35.10)

48

(27.60)

5

(17.20)

0

(0.00)

11

(5.90)

15

(8.60)

5

(17.20)

0.146

No. of years in

the present

position

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

16 – 20 years

9

(14.50)

14

(16.10)

17

(21.00)

25

(15.60)

17

(27.40)

28

(32.20)

22

(27.20)

51

(31.90)

10

(16.10)

12

(13.80)

13

(16.00)

21

(13.10)

23

(37.10)

26

(29.90)

25

(30.90)

46

(28.80)

3

(4.80)

7

(8.00)

4

(4.90)

17

(10.60)

0.888


level.


Interval by

Interval

9 Pears

on's

R

Value Asymp. Std.

Error (a)

Approx. T (b) Approx. Sig.

(-) 0.035 0.050 (-) 0.699 0.485

(-) 0.036 0.051 (-) 0.706 0.480

(-) 0.003 0.050 (-) 0.059 0.953

The data as presented in the Table 5 indicates that all the four respondents with work

experience less than 10 years disagreed with the poser that CR if negative is conveyed to

the employees. Further, in the other levels of work experience the responses were also

not highly supportive as less than majority of respondents (below 50.00 per cent) with

work experience 11-20 years and with work experience 31-40 years supported the query.

On the basis of total years of service variable both of the respondents with less than 10

years of service disagreed with the assertion. Again, only the near majority of the

respondents (52.30 per cent) with 21-30 years of total service supported the view point.

Analysing on the basis of number of years in the present position, the supporting

responses were less than majority, thereby leading us to infer that CR, if negative, was

not conveyed to the employees. Statistically no significant association was found


1744

ISSN: 2347-1697





The Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation as presented in the Table 5 (a)

reveals that the relationship between the variables and the responses of the employees

were positively related, however, the variable of number of years in present position

demonstrated the highly significant relationship, whereas the other two variables

presented low relationship with the responses of the employees.

7. Complexities In Performance Appraisal Process

Performance appraisal is a very complex process. It involves determining the

standards of performance; gathering of information about the employees on the job; an

evaluation or judgment of an employee with respect to what was expected from them

and a decision about how to use such information in the management decision-making.

Performance appraisal thus involves both pre and post appraisal activities, because

choices have to be made about how the appraisal is structured and how the information

is used in taking all the decisions regarding the employees. This process is more

complicated because along with the behaviour, the traits or characteristics, such as

loyalty or enthusiasm of the employees are also measured. In addition to this, individual

employees are also evaluated, formally and informally, in comparison to the other

employees. In some cases the forced distributions require managers to rank each

employee with reference to others, so that the proportions are fixed within each part of

the distribution. In other cases companies allow managers to rate each employee

individually, but then, they often find that evaluations across employees are highly

skewed towards the most favour able evaluations.

Table 6: The method of performance appraisal in the organisation is up to my satisfaction

vis-a-vis work related variables

Attributes/

Responses

10 Rank

s

Strongly

Agree Agree

Un

decided

Dis

Agree

Strongly

Disagree p

Work

Experience in

OICL

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

0

(0.00)

33

(17.60)

38

(21.50)

2

(9.50)

2

(50.00)

79

(42.00)

89

(50.30)

11

(52.40)

0

(0.00)

21

(11.20)

15

(8.50)

2

(9.50)

2

(50.00)

39

(20.70)

31

(17.50)

6

(28.60)

0

(0.00)

16

(8.50)

4

(2.30)

0

(0.00)

0.164

Total years of

service

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

0

(0.00)

31

(16.80)

35

(20.10)

7

(24.10)

1

(50.00)

80

(43.20)

86

(49.40)

14

(48.30)

0

(0.00)

22

(11.90)

14

(8.00)

2

(6.90)

1

(50.00)

36

(19.50)

36

(20.70)

5

(17.20)

0

(0.00)

16

(8.60)

3

(1.70)

1

(3.40)

0.318

No. of years in

the present

position

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

16 – 20 years

17

(27.40)

16

(18.40)

14

(17.30)

26

(16.30)

25

(40.30)

43

(49.40)

35

(43.20)

78

(48.80)

7

(11.30)

8

(9.20)

8

(9.90)

15

(9.40)

8

(12.90)

18

(20.70)

20

(24.70)

32

(20.00)

5

(8.10)

2

(2.30)

4

(4.90)

9

(5.60)

0.676

1745

ISSN: 2347-1697






level.


Interval by


Value Asymp. Std.

Error


(-) 0.104 0.049 (-) 2.068 0.039

(-) 0.115 0.050 (-) 2.279 0.023

0.055 0.052 1.084 0.279

The analysis of the Table 6 clearly indicates that near majority of the respondents

irrespective of any variable either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

According to the work experience, the respondents with less than 10 years of work

experience either were agreed or disagreed in equal proportion about the raised issue but

the high majority of respondents (71.80 per cent) with 21-30 years of work experience

and fair majority of respondents (61.90 per cent) with 31-40 years of work experience

provided their consent to the facet. On the basis of total years of service, 50.00 per cent

of respondents with less than 10 years, 60.00 per cent of respondents in 11-20 years,

69.50 per cent of respondents in 21-30 years and 72.40 per cent of respondents in 31-40

years either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. So the proportion of

favourable responses had shown an increasing trend with the increase in the period of

service, which demonstrate that as the service of the respondents increased, they became

more satisfied with the performance appraisal system in the organisation. Fair majority

of respondents (nearly 60.00 per cent) in all the categories of the variable number of

years in the present position provided the favoring response to the viewpoint. Further,

the positive response to the poser from the respondents (67.70 per cent) with less than 5

years in the present position and the respondents (67.80 per cent) with 6-10 years in the

present position was almost same. Statistically, no significant association was found


The data presented in the Table 6 (a) pertains to the Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation. It can be deciphered that the correlation between the variables and the

responses of the employees was positive but this relationship was low in case of all the

three variables.

Table 7: Promotion of the employee is based on the annual confidential report prepared by the

immediate boss vis-a-vis work related variables

Attributes/

Responses

11 Rank

s

Strongly

Agree Agree

Un

decided

Dis

Agree

Strongly

Disagree P

Work

Experience in

OICL

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

31 – 40 years

1

(25.00)

64

(34.00)

65

(36.70)

6

(28.60)

3

(75.00)

88

(46.80)

74

(41.80)

10

(47.60)

0

(0.00)

19

(10.10)

14

(7.90)

2

(9.50)

0

(0.00)

10

(5.30)

12

(6.80)

3

(14.30)

0

(0.00)

7

(3.70)

12

(6.80)

0

(0.00)

0.744

Total years of

service

0 – 10 years

11 – 20 years

21 – 30 years

0

(0.00)

60

(32.40)

65

(37.40)

2

(100.0)

88

(47.60)

73

(42.00)

0

(0.00)

20

(10.80)

13

(7.50)

0

(0.00)

10

(5.40)

12

(6.90)

0

(0.00)

7

(3.80)

11

(6.30)

0.822

1746

ISSN: 2347-1697





31 – 40 years

11

(37.90)

12

(41.40)

2

(6.90)

3

(10.30)

1

(3.40)

No. of years in

the present

position

0 – 5 years

6 – 10 years

11 – 15 years

16 – 20 years

26

(41.90)

23

(26.40)

25

(30.90)

62

(38.80)

19

(30.60)

46

(52.90)

44

(54.30)

66

(41.30)

3

(4.80)

10

(11.50)

6

(7.40)

16

(10.00)

8

(12.90)

6

(6.90)

0

(0.00)

11

(6.90)

6

(9.70)

2

(2.30)

6

(7.40)

5

(3.10)

0.006

Source: Computed from primary data. Figures in parentheses are percentages. p value significant at 0.05 level.


Interval by


Value Asymp. Std.

Error


0.042 0.048 0.829 0.408

0.006 0.049 0.110 0.913

(-) 0.076 0.055 (-) 1.498 0.135

Highly supportive responses were received when respondents were asked that

whether promotion is based on annual confidential report prepared by the immediate

boss. The results are highlighted in Table 7. All the four respondents with up to 10 years

of work experience and with less than 10 years of total service either agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement. Further, the proportion of respondents who supported the

facet declined with the increase in the work experience. Nearly significant majority of

respondents (80.00 per cent) with 11-20 years of total service, respondents (79.40 per

cent) with 21-30 years of total service and the respondents (79.30 per cent) with 31-40

years of total service either agreed or strongly agreed with the viewpoint. On the basis of

numbers of years in present position, high majority of respondents (72.50 per cent) with

less than 5 years in the present position, significant majority of respondents (85.20 per

cent) with 11-15 years in present position, respondents (80.10 per cent) with 16-20 years

in the present position and high majority of respondents (79.30 per cent) with 6-10 years

in present position, all the respondents supported the statement. Statistically, significant

association was found between the variable of number of years in present position and

the statement.

The Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation as presented in the Table 7 (a) indicates that the correlation between the variables and the responses of the employees

was positive. Further, on a closer look it can be said that the variable total years of

service demonstrated significantly high relation and the other two variables were lowly

related with the responses of the employees.

8. Findings Of The Study

Performance appraisal provided the employees’ feedback to better their performance in a bid to improve their rating over others, more than majority of employees

supported this assertion.

Performance appraisal provided an opportunity to the employees for self-review, this

was favored by the majority of employees.

1747

ISSN: 2347-1697





Performance appraisal was done through the annual confidential report prepared by

the immediate superior.

The majority of employees in almost all the variables supported the statement that

while evaluating performance vis-à-vis targets constraints beyond control were given

consideration. Further, there were some of the habitual employees who were silent

about the issue.

The majority of employees were either undecided, disagreed or strongly disagreed

that confidential report if negative was conveyed to the employees.

Employees were satisfied with the prevailing Performance appraisal system in the

organization.

It was found by the majority of employees that the promotion of the employees was

based on the annual confidential report prepared by the immediate superior.

9. Developing an Effective Performance Appraisal Program

Following essentials are necessary for the effective Performance appraisal program:

i. Mutual Trust and Confidence: For the improvement of the employees it is necessary

that both the supervisor and the subordinates should be able to discuss the matters

frankly and offer suggestions which may be beneficial for the organisation.

Therefore, an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence in the organisation is a

must for an effective system of performance appraisal.

ii. Reliability: For effective appraisals the top management should create a climate of

reliable appraisals in the organisation. Therefore, there should be goal orientation,

open communications, informal relationships etc. in the organisation.

iii. Specific Objectives: The performance appraisal system should be designed for the

achievement of the specific objectives and further the objectives of the performance

appraisal system should be relevant, timely, and open. For the achievement of the

objectives all the relevant factors should be considered and the relevant should be

accordingly collected.

iv. Standardization: The appraisal techniques should measure what they are supposed

to measure. There should be standardization of the appraisal forms, procedures,

administration of techniques, ratings etc. This will ensure uniformity and comparison

of the ratings.

v. Training of the Appraisers: Appraisers should have no personal biases and should

possess the necessary capabilities for the objective evaluation of the employees, for

this purpose appraisers should be properly selected and trained from time to time. It

has been proved that the appraisers who have undergone training proved to be better

appraisers than those who have not undergone training.

vi. Feedback: The employees should be provided timely feedback about their

performance especially when it is negative. This will help the employee to know his

weaknesses and he can take steps in improvement of his performance.

vii. Individual Differences: Individual difference in the organisation should be

recognized while designing the performance appraisal system. Different factors like

1748

ISSN: 2347-1697





size, financial resources, philosophy, and objectives of the organisation should be

considered while choosing the technique or method of the performance appraisal.

viii. Job Relatedness: The appraisers should give attention on the performance and the

job related behaviour of the employee. The individual as a person should never be

criticized. The appraiser should give importance to the performance rather than the

personality traits.

ix. Review and Appeal: There should be provision of appeals and revision of the

appraisals to ensure confidence of the employees and their unions.

10. References

[1] Peter. F. Drucker, “How to be an employee”, Psychology Today, March, 1968, p.35. [2] K.K. Jacob, “Grievance Redressal procedure and Labour Management Relations in State Level

Public Enterprises,” Labour and Development, 11(1), June 2005, pp. 33-44.

[3] M. Srimannarayana, “Human Resource Management in Small Business,” Indian Journal of

Industrial Relations, 41 (3), January 2006, pp. 313-327.

[4] Sushmita Biswal Warraich and Gopa Bhardwaj, “The World of Corporate Changes, Transitions and HR Competencies,” Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 43 (2), October 2007, pp. 269-

289.

[5] Singh Charanjeev and Sharma R.K., March, 2009. Training of Personnel In The Oriental

Insurance Company Limited: A Study of Regional Offices in Punjab and Haryana. Prabandhan:

Indian Journal of Management 3(3): 12-21

[6] Akhila Kunche , Ravi Kumar Puli , Sunitha Guniganti , Danaiah Puli , "Analysis and Evaluation

of Training Effectiveness", Human Resource Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, 2011, pp. 1-7.

doi: 10.5923/j.hrmr.20110101.01.

[7] Gerald D. Gyamfi , "Evaluating the Relationship between Selection Requirements and

Performance of Police Personnel in Ghana", Human Resource Management Research, Vol. 2 No.

1, 2012, pp. 1-5. doi: 10.5923/j.hrmr.20120201.01.

[8] Soleyman Iranzadeh, Khadijeh Bahrami, Survey of Knowledge Management Dimensions and

Creativity(a Case Study), Human Resource Management Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, 2013, pp. 55-

59. doi: 10.5923/j.hrmr.20130302.01.

[9] Robert J. Sahl, “Design effective performance appraisals”, Personnel Journal, October, 1990, p.56-57.

[10] Shalt Eldman, “Amoca keeps its employees in the big picture”, Personnel Journal, June, 1991, p.24.

[11] B.P. Singh, T.N. Chabra, P.L. Tanya, Personnel management and industrial relations, Dhanpat

Rai and Sons, New Delhi,1999, p.186.

[12] Yoder Dale, Personnel management and industrial relations, Prentice Hall, New Delhi,1976,

p.173.

[13] Wynter L.E., Black manager reject white bosses, Wall Street Journal, February, 1994, p.2.

[14] Conner, C., Brown Nosers, “Cross finish line first”, Denver Post, October 17,1985, p.1-2.

International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research...

Documents

Transcript of International Journal of Informative & Futuristic Research...