Group Members:

O Nafeesa Khalid
O Moattar Iqbal O Zainab bint-e-Irfan O Sana Zahid O Roshan Zameer

The Performance Appraisal Forms:

Consisted of three parts:
PAD l

Objectives for upcoming year

PAD ll

Evaluated the performance achievement against predetermined objectives Meant to access the competencies associated with objective realization.

PAD lll

Setting of annual objectives based on:

Specific

Time Bound

Measurable

Result Oriented

Attainable

O These objectives were assigned different

weightings based on their relative importance. O PAD meant to assess two types of competencies:
O Core Competencies O Advance Competencies

Core Competencies:
O Oral communication
O Written communication O Negotiation skills O Product knowledge & procedures O Policies

Advance Competencies:
O Customer focus, O Sales Focus, O Result Focus, O Building relationships and network, O Understanding the business, O Problem solving, O Concern for Quality, O Listening and responding,

O Demonstrating initiative,
O Team Network.

O These competencies varied from one

functional area to another. O SGM find a way to:

O Simplify the appraisal form. O Develop a directory of competencies with

their operational definitions.

First factor
O Principle of meritocracy O Solid performers v/s not so solid

performers

Second Factor:

O Overarching objectives O Evaluative objectives v/s

developmental objectives

Brainstorming Session:
O Objective performance appraisal
O Superior long-term performance O Basis for annual rewards O Potential for career growth O Assess the development needs O Greater objectivity and fairness

Continued
O Increase timely feedback
O Encourage teamwork O Increase consistency and

confidentiality O More discriminating to ensure just distribution of annual rewards

O Development needs
O Rewards and promotion decisions O Discriminating manner for equitable

distribution of rewards O Absolute v/s relative evaluation systems

O Another brainstorming session

O Ingredients of a performance appraisal

system O Other features of a performance appraisal system

Time consuming

O Time consuming
O Tasks that require extensive writing O Recalling of events O Burdensome because of work load O Immense pressure to achieve

performance target

O Not User friendly

O Not applicable to certain employees. O Problem of consistency and confidentiality O Appraisers bias towards an employee. O Evaluators weakness to defend poor

raters O Leniency versus strictness

Employees Feedback
O Unfair and unsatisfactory

performance appraisal system O Performance appraisal should be done objectively

Relative Grading:
Meisler defined relative grading as:
It is a work force management tool based on premise that in order to develop and thrive, a corporation must identify its best and worst performance, then nurture the former and rehabilitate and / or discard the letter. Its an elixir that in these slow growth times has proved irresistible to score of desperate corporate chieftains but indigestible to a good many employees.

Purpose of using Relative Grading Performance Evaluation:

O Identify leaders &
O Slackers with in the organization

Objectivity of using Relative Grading Performance Evaluation:

O Objectively reflect on how each team

member was performing:

O Relative to ultimate goal

Relative to others

Relative vs. Absolute Performance Apprais

Different view point

O The SGM HR was wondering what changes should be

made to the existing system.

O One of the views being considered was of normal

distribution curve.
O GM HR SNGPL had also learned that a forced

distribution system could be used to bring consistency to the performance appraisal system.

O GEs Vitality Curve corresponds with the normal

curve of distribution and was a relative measure of performance appraisal. O In GE employees were forced to a distribution of 20-7010 model. O This model meant that 20% of the people were top performers and most productive, 70% of the workforce worked adequately but the last 10% were non performers and were fired

O Many local companies have successfully

implemented this concept.

O This system is also implemented in Pakistan

Tobacco as well as Pakistan State Oil.

Pakistan Tobacco Company

O PTC used a five level scale.
O It adopted a forced distribution of 3% in

top performance bands, 14% in the next band, 66% in the middle and 4% for below average and the remaining 3% for unsatisfactory category O Based on experience, however, the top and bottom two levels were further refined for relative ranking as 1/2/2/1 (+/-3 SD).

Pakistan State Oil

O Adopted an evolutionary approach to forced

distribution. O Year 1 and Year 2 were evaluated on 5/20/50/20/5 (Outstanding, Above Average, Average, Below Average and Inadequate). O In Year 3 , PSO eliminated the inadequate category based on 5/20/55/2 and an SD +/-2.

O SGM HR while thinking about determining the forced

distribution bands for his company liked the way the bands had been decided by the public as well as private sector companies.
O He thought that such forced distribution could be helpful

in a public sector organization like SNGPL because it would not only measure the relative performance of the employees but also identify leaders and weak performers in the organization.

O He considered adopting forced distribution for

SNGPL of 5/15/75/3/2 with an SD of +/-2 but was not sure how his managers would react to it.

Moving Forward:
O SGM HR had to grapple with many issues

in reinforcing the current PAS but the most ticklish of these was the forced distribution method. O The simplification of the form was not considered by him to be too daunting a task. O He could surely make it more user friendly by seeking inputs from different managers.

O Similarly , he also felt that clarifying the main

objectives of the PAS could also be achieved without much difficulty. O While brooding over the many issues identified in the present PAS, SGM HR wondered how he should proceed in tackling the same. O Should he bring about different changes simultaneously or should he sequence his interventions to facilitate their implementation?

O He was also contemplating about the

process he should pursue to finalize his recommendations before presenting them to the Company Board.