1.INTRODUCTION 1.

1 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The topic of the project report is performance management system and its relationship with employee satisfaction.The research was conducted on employees of Indian Oil, Lodhi road branch.The aim of the project is to derive the satisfaction level from performance management system and sough improvements in the same. The connection between employee satisfaction and employee performance management is wide and clear, and the connection is obvious in the domain of human resource management while it has a broad impact on all aspects of organizational performance. Job satisfaction describes how content an individual is with his or her job. There are a variety of factors that can influence a persons level of job satisfaction. Some of these factors include the level of pay and benefits, the perceived fairness of the promotion system within a company, the quality of the working conditions, leadership and social relationships, the job itself. Other influences on satisfaction include the management style and culture, employee involvement, empowerment and autonomous workgroups. Job satisfaction is a very important attribute which is frequently measured by organizations. The most common way of measurement is the use of rating scales where employees report their reactions to their jobs. From the employees point of view performance appraisal is important, because they can modify their work behavior to become a more effective performer, and it increases the likelihood of receiving increase compensation and/or recognition. Indirect financial and non financial payments employees receive for continuing with good performance as well as the employment with the company are Supplemental Pay Benefits Insurance Benefits Vacations and Holidays Sick Leave Parental Leave and Family Leave Medical Leave Retirement Benefits

Performance appraisals are also known as employee appraisal. It is a technique by which the performance of an employee is measured in terms of cost, quality, time

and quantity. Performance appraisal is considered as part of career improvement and development. Performance appraisal are is on going continuous review of companys employee performance.

The purpose of these appraisals are as follows:

Give feedback on employees performance. Recognize training needs of employee. Shape criteria for salary increments, promotion etc. Offer the chance for organizational analysis and improvement. Bridge the communication gap between employee and administrator

Document criteria used to allocate organizational rewards. Form a basis for personnel decisions: salary increases, promotions, disciplinary actions, etc. Provide the opportunity for organizational diagnosis and development. Validate selection techniques and human resource policies to meet federal Employment Opportunity requirements. equal

A frequently used technique to evaluate performance is to make use of numerical or scalar rating method where managers numerically score an individual against a number of objectives/ attributes.The other method is 360 degree performance appraisal in this the employees are also allowed the opportunity to assess the person and give feedback about manager. Mostly used appraisals are: 360-Degree Performance Appraisal. General Performance Appraisal.

 Technical /Administrative Performance Appraisal.

Manager Performance Appraisal.

Employee Self Assessment.

Project Evaluation Review. Sales Performance Appraisal.

PROCESSES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

The process of Performance Appraisal is as shown in the following tabular form:-

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT IOCL

BRIEF ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN IOCL

With a view to appraising each employee, helping the management in placement,

transfer and promotion, and deciding about his training needs.The following systems are in practice in IOCL.

(i) (ii)

e-PMS (Electronic Performance Management System) for officers. CRs (Confidential Reports) for non officers.

Assessment period

The assessment period for recording the performance of officers is financial year (1 April to 31 March). For staff it is calendar year.

Employees having rendered more than three months service in a particular year has been separated before end assessment years are eligible and rated through ePMS System.

PROCESS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM FOR OFFICERS:Three persons participate actively in Performance Appraisal System. Who are:

(i) (ii)

Appraisee: The employee, who is to be evaluated. Appraiser: Supervisor, who evaluate the performance of Appraiser.

(iii)

Reviewer: Sr. executives, who check the evaluation process.

Apraisee fills a form in the starting of financial year which includes targets to be achieved by that particular employee. Then Appraiser and Appraisee discuss them, reach an agreement and put the agreed goals in writing. Then they plan how to achieve these goals. On the basis of priority they decide activities to be done to achieve the goals. At the end of financial year, Appraisee evaluates himself and gives marks out of 5. Then Appraiser evaluates the Appraisee and gives him marks out of 5. These 3 marks signify: 321Outstanding Average. Needs improvement

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES

1) To find the satisfaction level of the employees regarding their jobs 2 To identify ways to improve the existing performance appraisal system. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES

3) To understand the existing relationship between management and employees. 4) To evaluate the various methods of performance appraisals

SCOPE The scope of the project report is limited to Lodhi road branch of Indian Oil Corporation.

Chapter-2.LITERATURE REVIEW

It is often said that organisations that perform well are a reflection of the efforts and successes of their staff. Recognising these efforts and appropriately praising or redirecting them is imperative for organisational success. This is the basic purpose of performance appraisals.

George and Cole (1992) describe it as, to discuss performance and plan for the future. Wanna et al (1992) define the objective of staff appraisals as to improve planning and service delivery at the general level, but also to provide feedback to individual officers

Kouzes and Posner (1993) stress the importance of finding people who fit the company rather than a specific job, this can be extrapolated to include keeping the right people. It must be recognised that every organisation will be subject to a set of values or culture and if that culture is not the desired one then the identification of desired attitudes or behaviours in individuals should be actively considered at times of performance review.

Curtain (1993) highlights the key competencies required are those of leadership, stating that public sector managers at all levels need to be able to display leadership values. The issue of leadership competencies versus a more traditional managerial skill set is argued by Curtain in terms of good management being related to order and predictability whilst leadership through inspiration, motivation and establishment of common values of staff is able to produce change, often to a dramatic degree Dickenson (1994) argues that to ignore individuals in the review process is to ignore a major input into the achievement of organisational outcomes Performance measurement is a fundamental process of management (Muchiri et al., 2010). It managed the performance of both organizations and individuals. The performance may include the inputs, outcomes, impacts and relate to economy, efficiency, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, or equity (Brudan, 2010). The process of performance management is like a cycle, which include plan, act, monitor and review (Armstrong, 2005). Planning is to set goals for organizations. It helps to identify the objectives and competence requirements of an organization.

To underpin these discussions, there must be a reliable and accurate method by which to determine current levels of performance and compare them with predetermined levels of acceptability. There is therefore an inference of a need for quantifiable standards linked to job descriptions and expected performance (Wanna et al 1992). Wood (1989) argues that this leads to two types of appraisal mechanisms, based on either accountabilities or core competencies. The challenge, is to find ways to discuss openly what has previously been left unsaid (Cherry, 1993) According to (Pulakos, 2003)The ability to conduct performance appraisal relies on the ability to assess an employees performance in a fair and accurate manner. Evaluating employee performance is a difficult task. Once the supervisor understands the nature of the job and the source of information, the information needs to be collected in a systematic way, provided as feedback, and integrated into the organizations performance management process for use in making compensation, job placement and training decisions and assignment. According to Landy, Zedeck, Cleveland, 1983 performance appraisal, it provides the foundation for behaviorally based employee counseling. In the counseling setting, performance information provides the vehicle for increasingsatisfaction, commitment, and motivation of the employee. Performance measurement allows the organization to tell the employee some thing about their rates of growth, their competencies, and their potentials. There is little disagreement that if well done, performance measurements and feedback can play a valuable role in effecting the organization . McKirchy, 1998 states that Performance appraisals should focus on three objectives: performance, not personalities; valid, concrete, relevant issues, rather that subjective emotions and feelings;reaching agreement on what the employee is going to improve in his performance and what you are going to do. According to Barr, 1993A portion of the process should be devoted to an examination of potential opportunities to pursue advancement of acceptance of more complex responsibilities. The employee development goals should be recognized as legitimate, and plans should be made to reach the goals through developmental experiences or education () Zedeck, Cleveland, 1983 states that Encouraging development is not only asupervisors professional responsibility, but it also motivates an employee to pursue additional commitments. In addition, the pursuit of these objectives will also improve the prospect that current employees will be qualified as candidates when positions become available. This approach not only motivates current performance but also assists the recruitment of current employees as qualified candidates for future positions

Chapter-3.Research Methodology 3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN:

Explorative Research as well as Descriptive type of Research has been used.

i. Explorative Research: The explorative research has helped to determine the best research design, data collection and selection of subjects. The reliance of exploratory research on secondary research, such as qualitative approaches: informal discussions with employees, management and more formal approaches through in-depth interviews, questionnaire has given a significant insight into the given situation.

ii. Descriptive research: On the other hand descriptive research has helped to determine how, where, when and what of the situation. Therefore descriptive research has been used here to get the maximum amount of the information.

3.2 SAMPLING SAMPLING METHOD Probabilistic random sampling was used. SAMPLE SIZEA sample of 100 employees was taken for the purpose of project. SAMPLING UNITThe unit was the employees of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Lodhi Road.

DATA COLLECTION The data was collected by meeting the respondents. The purpose of this study was explained to them in brief and then the questionnaire was administered to them. There are two types of data collection methods:

Primary Data: In research primary data is collected from all respective areas. In my report the primary data are collected from questionnaire and personal interview of the employee. Other sources were

Communication with the employees of the department through interviews Getting information by observations

Secondary Data: In my report the secondary data are collection Internet and journals. Other sources were

Office manuals of the department. Magazines, Reports in the company.

Policy documents of various departments Instrument Structured questionnaire was used as an instrument to elicit information from the respondents. Statistical Package The statistical package is Microsoft Excel Statistical Tool Tables,pie charts and bar diagrams were used as statistical tools.

CHAPTER-4.DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 GENDER WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS TABLE 3.5.1GENDER WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS Gender No. of respondents Percentage (%) Male 89 89 Female 11 11 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.1 GENDER WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 No. of respondents Percentage (%) 11 11 Male Female 89 89

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 89% of the respondents are male and 11% of the respondents are female.

4.2 AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS TABLE 3.5.2 AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS Age No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) 20 30 25 25 30-40 33 33 40-45 12 12 Above-45 12 12 Total 100 100

FIGURE 4.2 AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS

35 30 25 25 25 20 No. Of Respondents 15 10 5 0 20 30 30-40 40-45 Above-45 12 12 12 12 Percentage (%) 33 33

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 33% of the respondents are in the age between 30 35, 30% of the respondents are in the age between 40 45, 25% of the respondents are in the age between 20 25 and 12% of the respondents are in the age above 45.

4.3 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS TABLE 4.4 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS

Educational Qualification No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Graduate 49 49 PG Degree 19 19 Engineering 4 4 Others(iti) 28 28 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.4 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 49% of the respondents are UG degree holders, 28% of the respondents are some others (iti), 19% of respondents are PG degree holders and 4% of the respondents are engineering graduates. 4.4 PERIODICITY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 4.4 PERIODICITY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Performance appraisal times No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Once year 100 100 Twice a year 0 0 No specific time 0 0 Total 100 100

FIGURE 4.4 PERIODICITY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

100 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Once year Twice a year No specific time 0 0 0 0 No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents agree that performance appraisal is conducting once a year. 4.5 REASON FOR CONDUTING PERFORMANCE APPRISAL TABLE 4.5 REASON FOR CONDUTING PERFORMANCE APPRISAL

Performance appraisal conducting To identify motivating methods To decide monetary benefits Identifying barriers of performance All of the above Total

No. Of Respondents 100 100

Percentage (%) 100 100

FIGURE 4.5 REASON FOR CONDUTING PERFORMANCE APPRISAL

100 100 100

50 00 0 00 00 No. Of Respondents Percentage (%)

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents agree that the reason for conducting performance appraisal includes all the factors such as to identify motivating methods, to decide monetary benefits and identify barriers for performance. 4.6 DURATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONDUCTED TABLE 4.6 DURATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONDUCTED Time of Appraisal No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) During working hours 87 87 During non-working hours 13 13 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.6 DURATION PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONDUCTED

No. Of Respondents
87 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 During working hours

No. Of Respondents 13

During non-working hours

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that for 87% of the respondents performance appraisal is conducted during working hours and for 13% respondents performance appraisal is conducted during non-working hours. FIGURE 4.6 DUR ATION PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL CONDUCTED

4.7 PRIOR INFORMATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 4.7 PRIOR INFORMATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Informed reason for No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) conducting Performance appraisal Always 20 20 Sometimes 77 77 Never 7 7 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.7 PRIOR INFORMATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Always Sometimes Never 7 7 20 20 No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) 77 77

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 77% of respondents feel that the reason for performance appraisal is discussed sometimes, 20% of the respondents feel it is discussed always and 3% of respondents say reason is never discussed.

4.8 EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE DISCUSSED TABLE 4.8 EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE DISCUSSED Meetings for No. Of Respondents employee performance Nil Once 100 Twice Thrice Total 100

Percentage (%) 100 100

No. Of Respondents

employee performance Nil

100

Once Twice Thrice

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that for 100% of the respondents meeting on performance is conducting once a year. 4.9 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROGRAMS RELATED WITH ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS TABLE 4.9 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROGRAMS RELATED WITH ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS Goals No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) To a high extent 12 12 To some extent 69 69 To a low extent 19 19 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.9 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PROGRAMS RELATE TO ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS

No. Of Respondents
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 To a high extent To some extent To a low extent 12 19 69 No. Of Respondents

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 69% of the respondents feel the performance appraisal relates to some extent to organization goals, 19% feel to a low

extent and 12% feel to a high extent it relates.

4.10 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL RELEVANCE TO EMPLOYEE JOB TABLE 4.10. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL RELEVANCE TO EMPLOYEE JOB S. No Relevance No. Of Percentage (%) Respondents 1 Highly relevant 87 87 2 relevant 13 13 3 no idea 4 Irrelevant 5 highly irrelevant Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.10 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL RELEVANCE TO EMPLOYEE JOB

No. Of Respondents

0 13 0 87

1 Highly relevant 2 relevant 3 no idea 4 Irrelevant 5 highly irrelevant

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 87% of the respondents feel that performance appraisal is highly relevant to employee job and 13% feel it is relevant.

4.11 OPINION AND SUGGESTIONS SHARED TO MANAGERS TABLE 4.11 OPINION AND SUGGESTIONS SHARED TO MANAGERS Opinion and suggestions No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Mostly 100 100 Rarely Never Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.11 OPINION AND SUGGESTIONS SHARED TO MANAGERS

No. Of Respondents
100 100 80 60 No. Of Respondents 40 20 0 0 Mostly Rarely Never 0

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents mostly share their opinion and suggestions to their managers. 4.12TRAINING OF FILL UP PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM TABLE 4.12TRAINING OF FILL UP PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM Forms No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Yes 100 100 No Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.12TRAINING OF FILL UP PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FORM

No. Of Respondents
120 100 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 Yes No No. Of Respondents

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents are given training to fill the appraisal form.

4.13 FEEDBACK PROVIDED FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT TABLE 4.13 FEEDBACK PROVIDED FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT Feedback Frequently Occasionally Never Total No. Of Respondents 11 89 100 Percentage (%) 11 89 100

. FIGURE 4.13 FEEDBACK PROVIDED FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

No. Of Respondents
89 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

No. Of Respondents

11 0 Frequently Occasionally Never

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 89% of the respondents feel that feedback is provided occasionally whereas 11% feel that feedback is provided frequently 4.14 IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 3.5.19 IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Importance No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Highly important 90 90 Less important 10 10 Not important Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.14 IMPORTANCE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

No. Of Respondents
90 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Highly important

No. Of Respondents 10 0 Less important Not important

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 90% of the respondents feel performance appraisal is highly important and 10% of the respondents feel it is less important. 4.15 PROPER EXECUTION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 3.5.20 PROPER EXECUTION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL properly executed in your No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) organization Yes 78 78 No 22 22 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.15 PROPER EXECUTION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

No. Of Respondents
78 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 organization Yes No 22 No. Of Respondents

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 78% of the respondents feel performance appraisal is properly executed while 22% feel it is not properly executed.

4.16 SUPPORT OF TOP MANAGEMENT IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 4.16 SUPPORT OF TOP MANAGEMENT IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Support No. of Respondents Percentage (%) Highly supportive 64 64 Less supportive 36 36 Not supportive Total 100 100

FIGURE 4.16 SUPPORT OF TOP MANAGEMENT IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

No. of Respondents
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Highly supportive 36 No. of Respondents 0 Less supportive Not supportive 64

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 64% of the respondents feel top management is highly supportive and 36% feel they are less supportive. 4.17 UPDATING OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 4.17 UPDATING OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Reviewed and updated No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Frequently 46 46 Occasionally 54 54 Never Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.17 UPDATION OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

No. Of Respondents
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Frequently Occasionally Never 0 No. Of Respondents 46 54

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 54% of the respondents feel the performance appraisal is reviewed occasionally while 46% of respondents feel they are reviewed frequently. 4.18 POTENTIAL IDENTIFIED BY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 4.18POTENTIAL IDENTIFIED BY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Effectiveness No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Effectively 36 36 Less effectively 54 54 Neutral 10 10 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.18 POTENTIAL IDENTIFIED BY PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

No. Of Respondents
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Effectively Less effectively Neutral 10 36 No. Of Respondents 54

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 54% of the respondents feel that

potential is identified less effectively, 36% feel effectively, and 10% feel neutral. 4.19 RATE THE TRAINING IMPARTED TO FILL PERFORMANCE GAP TABLE 4.19 RATE THE TRAINING IMPARTED TO FILL PERFORMANCE GAP Satisfaction No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Unsatisfactory 17 17 Needs Improvement 51 51 Meets Expectations 12 12 Outstanding 20 20 Total 100 100

FIGURE 4.19 RATE THE TRAINING IMPARTED TO FILL PERFORMANCE GAP

No. Of Respondents

51 32 12 17

20

Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Meets Expectations Outstanding

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 51% of the respondents feel the performance appraisal Needs Improvement, 20%of the respondents feel it is Outstanding, 17% of the respondents feel it is Unsatisfactory and 12% of the respondents say it Meets Expectations. 4.20 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ENCOURAGES TO REACH GOAL TABLE 4.20 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ENCOURAGES TO REACH GOAL Reaching your goals No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Strongly agree 57 57 Agree 21 21 Neutral 10 10 Disagree 12 12 Strongly disagree Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.20 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ENCOURAGES TO REACHING GOAL

No. Of Respondents
12 10 0 Strongly agree Agree Neutral 57 21 Disagree Strongly disagree

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 57% of the respondents agree that performance appraisal encourages to reach goals, 21% agree, 12% disagree and 10% feel neutral.

4.21 APPRAISAL FEED BACK TABLE 4.21 APPRAISAL FEED BACK appraisal feed back No. Of Respondents Frequently 33 Occasionally 57 Rarely 10 Never Total 100

Percentage (%) 33 57 10 100

FIGURE 4.21 APPRAISAL FEED BACK

No. Of Respondents
60 50 40 30 20 10 10 0 Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never 0 33 No. Of Respondents 57

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, it can be inferred that 57%of the respondents feel they are given feedback occasionally, 33% feel frequently and 10% feel rarely. 4.22 POSITIVE & NEGATIVE POINTS DISCUSSED TABLE 4.22 POSITIVE & NEGATIVE POINTS DISCUSSED Positive & negative points No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Yes 100 100 No Total 100 100

No. Of Respondents
100 100 80 60 40 20 0 Yes No 0 No. Of Respondents

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 100% of the respondents feel that both positive and negative points are discussed. 4.23 ATTITUDE WHEN NEGATIVE POINTS ARE DISCUSSED TABLE 4.23 ATTITUDE WHEN NEGATIVE POINTS ARE DISCUSSED Attitude when Negative No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) points discussed 46 46 Discouraged determined to perform better 27 27 Ready to learn 10 10 Do not want to contribute 17 17 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.23ATTITUDE WHEN NEGATIVE POINTS ARE DISCUSSED

No. Of Respondents
17 Discouraged 10 46 determined to perform better Ready to learn 27 Do not want to contribute

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 46% of the respondents feel discouraged, 27% of the respondents feel determined to perform better, 17% of the respondents feel they do not want to contribute and 10% of the respondents feel they are ready to learn. 4.24 RATING APPRAISAL PROGRAM TABLE 4.24 RATING APPRAISAL PROGRAM Rate appraisal program No. Of Respondents Reliable 10 Effective 25 Accurate 25 Motivating 35 Unbiased 5 Total 100 FIGURE 4.24 RATING APPRAISAL PROGRAM

Percentage (%) 10 25 25 35 5 100

No. Of Respondents
5 35 10 25 Reliable Effective Accurate Motivating 25 Unbiased

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table, it can be inferred that 35% of the respondents feel the performance appraisal programme is motivating, 25% of respondents feel it is effective, 25% of the respondents feel it is accurate, 10% of the respondents are feel it is reliable and 5% of the respondents feel it is unbiased. 4.25 COMFORTABILITY IN DISCUSSING PROBLEMS TABLE 4.25 COMFORTABILITY IN DISCUSSING PROBLEMS Comfortability No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Highly Comfortable 75 75 Comfortable 25 25 Neutral Uncomfortable Highly uncomfortable Total 100 100 . FIGURE 4.25 COMFORTABILITY IN DISCUSSING PROBLEMS

No. Of Respondents
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 75

25 0 0 0 No. Of Respondents

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 75% of the respondents feel they are Highly Comfortable, and 25% of respondents feel they are Comfortable in discussing their problems with their superior 4.26 RATING IS GENERALLY BASED ON WHAT FACTORS TABLE 4.26 RATING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE Performance rated No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Based on abilities and skills 10 10 Based on management 25 25 reference Based on superiority 25 25 Based on contribution 40 40 Total 100 100

FIGURE 4.26 RATING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

No. Of Respondents
25 65 10

Based on abilities and skills Based on management reference 40 Based on superiority Based on contribution

25

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 40% of the respondents feel rating is based on contribution, 25% of respondents feel rating is based on management reference. 25% of the respondents feel rating is based on superiority and 10% of the respondents feel it is based on abilities and skills. 4.27 CHANGES TAKEN AFTER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TABLE 4.27 CHANGES TAKEN AFTER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Result of Performance No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Appraisal Change in motivating 33 33 strategy Re-structuring of 25 25 organisation or individual objectives Improvement in 25 25 management-employee relationship Making changes in 17 17 dissatisfied areas No decision taken Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.27 CHANGES TAKEN AFTER PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

No. Of Respondents
0 17 33 Change in motivating strategy Re-structuring of organisation or individual objectives Improvement in management-employee relationship 25 Making changes in dissatisfied areas

25

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 33 % of the respondents feel there is change in motivating strategy, 25% of the respondents feel re-structuring of organisation or individual objectives, 25% of respondents feel there is improvement in managementemployee relationship and 17% of the respondents feel on making changes in dissatisfied areas.

4.28 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IMPROVING OVER ALL PERFORMANCE TABLE 4.28 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IMPROVING OVER ALL PERFORMANCE Effectiveness No. Of Respondents Percentage (%) Highly effective 34 34 Effective 16 16 Moderate 15 15 In Effective 25 25 Highly ineffective 10 10 Total 100 100 FIGURE 4.28 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IMPROVING OVER ALL PERFORMANCE

No. Of Respondents
10 34 25 Highly effective Effective Moderate 15 16 In Effective Highly ineffective

INTERPRETATION: From the above table, it can be inferred that 34% of the respondents feel performance appraisal improve overall performance highly effectively, 25% of the respondents feel it is ineffective, 16% of respondents feel it is effective, 15% of the respondents feel it is moderate and 10% of the respondents are feel it is highly ineffective.

CHAPTER-5 Findings Conclusions and Suggestions

Findings
The workers were fairly satisfied with their role in the firm. This was the result of the firm being a target based company. The senior subordinate doesnt put too much pressure on the methods that the employees get their job done. i.e. an employee may have zero progress in the first two weeks but as long as by the end of the month, the target gets achieved there is no problems. The employees are given credit for the various milestones that they achieve and the employees are given full freedom of doing their job in or out of the office. All the employees were unanimously in positive favour for their relations with immediate supervisor. The Branch manager at our firm is of a very friendly yet goal oriented nature. So he has ways of getting the job done without hurting the employees either. Everyone is assisted at the time of doubts or when needed. Even when it comes to achieving certain milestones like trips to foreign countries, in case one or the other employee is lacking by a small margin the full support and resources are given to ensure that the milestone is achieved. The method of appraisal used is MBO.Appraiser evaluates Appraisee on the basis of following areas:

(i)

KRA (Key Result Area) is basic area to evaluate employees

performance.

KPI (Key Performance Indicator): On the basis of KRA, Appraiser gives measurable grades to Appraisee is known as KPI. It may be in terms of marks or percentage. On the basis of difficult KRA, Appraiser decide the stretch for each KPI.

(ii)

Competency Skills such as Intelligence, Communicative

Ability, Decisiveness, Human Skills, Teaching Skill, Executive

Skills, Leadership Skills, Negotiation Skills, and Creativity Skills.

(iii)

Potential: It shows Employees ability to do the work and to take

up higher responsibilities in future.

(iv)

Values: It shows how much values of individual match to the

objectives of organization.

5.2 Conclusions
1.The employees are well versed with the performance management system carried out at IOCL. They are aware of the reasons for performance appraisal and his give the fullest of their corporation which also means they are satisfied with the system. 2. It can also be observed that there is some biasness in the evaluation system or the ratings which could contribute to dissatisfaction. 3. The performance management system is not that effective in identifying latent potential of employees and only rates them over their monotonous work schedule. Employees do not feel that comfortable in discussing negative points which acts as a barrier in effective communication and contuous improvement. 4. Management by objectives is used as a measure of performance appraisal as the objectives are set in consultation of employees. And thus they are highly motivated and their suggestions are welcomed. 5. On the whole employees are satisfied with the performance appraisal system of the Corporation.

5.3 SUGGESTIONS
1.The performance appraisal should be conducted more than once in a year. 2.The reasons for conducting appraisal should be clearly spelled out. 3.The entire structure needs to be restructured in such a way that employees so not shy away from discussing negative points and be more transparent so that biasness does not take place.

4.More emphasis should be laid on identifying potential of the employees. 5.Prompt feedback needs to be given from time to time in order to check employees whenever they deviate from the path.