Quick go couriers assignement


Published on

HRM changes and modifications done by the company and there brief explanation

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Quick go couriers assignement

  1. 1. 1 For Academic Purpose Only Performance Management & Appraisal System – Gaurav Vatsa Quick-Go Couriers Quick-Go Couriers is a metro-city-based mid-sized firm that employs 600 people in its rapidly growing commercial parcel collection and distribution business, which it has operated successfully throughout India since the firm’s establishment seven years ago. The firm has separate departments covering customer service, parcel collection and distribution, vehicle maintenance, accounts, legal, marketing and human resources. Most of its line employees and supervisors work in customer call centres, distribution centres and vehicle maintenance facilities located strategically across the country. The firm could best be described as having a cost-defender competitive strategy, a mechanistic organisational structure and a tradition management culture. Kaushik, Quick-Go’s human resources manager, is proud of his and the firm’s achievements. When it comes to people management, Kaushik ’s approach is down-to-earth and pragmatic. Previously a despatch driver himself, Kaushik has little time for managers who spend their time reading the latest management books, chasing university degrees or agonising about the options for ‘best practice’ people management. Kaushik also believes in ‘buying’ rather than ‘building’ skilled staff. In-house training and development, he says, is just a waste of everyone’s time – and of the firm’s money. He is especially proud of the one-page form that he has designed for use in the firm’s once- a-year performance assessment round. The form, which is reproduced below, is applied to all of Quick-Go’s non-managerial employees, including call centre staff, parcel despatch people, drivers, vehicle maintenance workers and administration staff. The form is straightforward and can be completed in just a few minutes, so that supervisors are not tied down in unproductive paperwork. The assessment outcomes are then used to determine which employees will receive the Rs.25,000 annual bonus that the firm pays to its best performers and which employees will be dismissed. Under Kaushik’s system, the top 20 per cent of employees get the bonus and the bottom 10 per cent are ‘let go’. But this year’s performance assessment round did not go as smoothly as Kaushik might have hoped. This year, for the first time, three employees, all known to each other and all recruited from the same competitor firm less than eighteen months before, challenged the accuracy of their assessments, wrote a letter of complaint to the managing director, and threatened legal action unless changes were made to the way in which they and their fellow employees are assessed. To Kaushik’s astonishment, the problem, they argued, lay in the form itself. Kaushik’s initial inclination was to dismiss the complaints as nothing more than sour grapes, since none of the complainants has made it into the bonus cut. Then, feeling that his integrity had been challenged, he decided to commission a human resources consulting firm to confirm the worth of his assessment form. The firm he chooses is none other than the one for which you happen to work and for which you are the resident expert on performance management systems. So the task of providing an expert
  2. 2. 2 For Academic Purpose Only Performance Management & Appraisal System – Gaurav Vatsa opinion on Kaushik’s form falls naturally to you. Specifically, you agree to provide brief (200–400 word) written responses to each of the following four questions: 1. What are the specific type or types of performance management technique(s) present in the instrument? 2. What are the instrument’s main strengths? 3. Are there any features in the instrument that may compromise assessment validity, reliability and felt-fairness? 4. Are there any ways in which the instrument, and the approach to performance management that it reveals, might be improved?
  3. 3. 3 For Academic Purpose Only Performance Management & Appraisal System – Gaurav Vatsa Quick-Go COURIERS ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FORM Name: Position: Branch & Division: Instructions: Draw a circle around the applicable number for each question. 1. Quantity of work is the amount of work an individual does in a working day. 2. Accuracy is the correctness of work duties performed. 1 2 3 4 5 Makes frequent errors Careless; makes recurrent errors Usually accurate; makes only average number of mistakes Requires little supervision; is exact & precise most of the time Requires absolute minimum of supervision; almost always accurate 3. Alertness is the ability to grasp instructions, to meet changing conditions and to resolve unexpected problems 1 2 3 4 5 Slow to catch on Requires more than average instruction and explanation Grasps instructions with average ability Usually quick to learn and understand Exceptionally keen and alert 4. Respect and courtesy, the key to making his/her job opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 Does not meet minimum requirement Does just enough to get By Volume of work is satisfactory Very industrious; does more than required Superior work production record 1 2 3 4 5 Blunt, discourteous antagonistic Sometimes tactless Agreeable and pleasant Very polite and willing to help Inspiring to others in being courteous and pleasant
  4. 4. 4 For Academic Purpose Only Performance Management & Appraisal System – Gaurav Vatsa 5. How mentally flexible is this person in his/her thoughts and approach to any presented task? 6. Dependability is the ability to do required jobs well with minimum of supervision. 7. How readily does this person offer to help out by doing that which is apart from his/her own job? 8. What is your appraisal for this person’s overall performance in the past 12 months? 9. Attendance (state problems if any) Rank order of this employee in this department: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total number of employees: . . . . . . . . . . . Rated by Name: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Signature: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Date: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5 Rigid Average Flexible 1 2 3 4 5 Requires close supervision; is unreliable Requires prompting Sometimes Usually takes care of necessary tasks with reasonable promptness Requires little supervision. Is reliable Requires absolute minimum supervision 1 2 3 4 5 Resists Normal Readily 1 2 3 4 5 Poor Below Average Average Above Average Excellent