Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this document? Why not share!

Pms( dcted)

on

  • 484 views

dissecting the PMS system in a company

dissecting the PMS system in a company

Statistics

Views

Total Views
484
Views on SlideShare
484
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Pms( dcted) Pms( dcted) Document Transcript

  • THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, AHMEDABAD. Assignment ON PMS (Form Dissection) SUBMITTED TO Prof. Gaurav Vats Sir SUBMITTED BY: - Pratik Negi Shalini Kaushal Utkarsh Mistry Pooja TIwary
  • Analysis on performance ratings in a manufacturing company The appraisal form is of a manufacturing company which is into making of industrial goods. The company has around 500 employees including workers and managers . The methods of Appraisal used in the form are:- 1. Part A-> Weighted average method is used as weights are assigned to different works. For example Recruitment has 25% weightage. 2. To justify ratings given by employee and manager Critical incident method is used at every step where both sides support their ratings by narrating incidents specific to the responsibilities. 3. Part B-> Simple graphic rating scale is used to give ratings for performance factors. Strengths of the form 1. The form is a two sided form having ratings from both side employee and manager which ensures inter rater reliability. 2. The form is flexible that is same form is used in all departments which also means having cost effective benefits. 3. Critical incident method provides justification which enhances simple ratings. 4. Employee progress and development is identified and given feedback on areas to improve which is in Part E. Weakness of the form 1. In part A regarding weights the task role clarity is not there which means suppose an employee has focused only on Industrial relations the priority and weightage of his key role is not very significant as compared to other roles which will hamper his performance ratings. 2. The percentage achieved in quantified terms is very vague and parameter is not given to assign percentage based on weights. 3. Content validity error prevails as there are things missing to be assessed and form is generic in approach. 4. Open ended or critical incident methods are manipulative as no one would like to mention any bad points or weakness. They will only focus which are good and fetch good ratings for them. 5. Part C has an option of identifying competencies either in form of strengths or weakness. In this every employee will focus on best competencies he has which will lead to biasness and lack of criterion validity (What we are saying we are not measuring).
  • 6. In part B where employee and manager are required to give key job responsibilities they both can differ on opinions leading to ambiguous ratings. Recommendations 1. In part A -> Individual objective and desired results Weights should be assigned after giving KRAs in that particular period and specific to work done by the employee. Clear parameters should be set to decide percentage achieved by weighted average method. For example in Recruitment % weight-> 25 Employee assessment % achieved % achieved manager Parameter used for assessing 0%-25 % -> supporting the recruitment activities. 25% -50% -> Supporting activities, use of relevant sources 50% -75% -> Supporting, end-to-end, sourcing, achieving all targets 75%-100% -> supporting, achieving more than expected, implementing new methods. 2. In part B the simple graphic rating scale should be given on KRAs identified commonly by employee and manager for specific role. Also the similar set of statements having content validity error should be removed. For example for a worker performance factors can be Employee rating manager rating Handling machine Time required finishing work 3. In Part C to rectify error of identifying competencies based on strength or weakness we can give a pair of similar statements (Forced choice) to assess employee’s strengths and weakness both. For example behavior is team behavior of worker Choose the most appropriate one among the two  Gels well with other workers.  Helps other workers to do their work.  Indulges in small fights  Takes part in bad union politics View slide