main progect

7/30/2019 Main Progect

1/61

A STUDY ONEFFECTIVENESS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM FOR MIDDLE

LEVEL EXECUTIVESAT FLEMING LABORATORIES LIMITED .HYDERABAD

A Project Report submitted to

SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY, TIRUPATHI

In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Award Of Degree Of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Submitted by

R.NARESH BABU

(Regd No: 240798025)

Under The Guidance Of

MR.RAVIKANTH, M.B.A

(Faculty Of Management studies)

Department Of Management Studies

JAGANS INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

(Affiliated to S.V University, Approved by AICTE)

Nellore-5240042006-2008


2/61

DECLARATION

I, R.NARESH BABU hereby declare that this project report titled

A Study on effectiveness of Performance Appraisal System of

Middle-Level Executives at Fleming Laboratories Limited,

Secundrabad has been prepared by me in partial fulfillment of

requirement for the award of degree of the Master Degree in Business

Administration by University of S.V, TIRUPATHI.

.

Place: NELLORE

Date:

R.NARESH BABU

1


3/61

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The presentation of this project has given me the opportunity to express

my profound gratitude to all those who have made it possible for me to

accomplish this project work. At the first instance I would like to thank

the FLEMING LABORATORIES Ltd., Hyderabad, for giving me the

opportunity to do the project work in esteemed organization.

I am especially thankful to P.ANANTHRAM, the Director in FLEMING

LABORATORIES Ltd, Hyderabad for their valuable guidance.

I am especially thankful to Mr. Dr. N. THIRUPALU,

(M.com,BL,MBA,Ph.D)Principal and also to Mr. T.V.S.RAVIKANTH,

Associate professor, Mr.C.SASIDHAR head of the department of

JAGANS INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES for

supporting me in all my deeds during my curriculum.

.

R.NARESH BABU

2


4/61

3


5/61

CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION

Objectives of the Study

Scope of the Study

Methodology

Limitations of the Stud

2

COMPANY & INDUSTRY PROFILE

3 CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK

4

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA

5 FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1


6/61

RESEARCH

METHDOLOGY

1


7/61

INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT

An individual without information cannot take responsibility an

individual who is given information cannot help but take responsibility.

Performance Appraisal is the most powerful and least expensive for

directing, managing, motivating, and developing the performance and

potential of teams and individuals.

Performance appraisal may involve goal setting, employee selection

and placement, compensation, performance appraisals, training and

development and career management. Performance appraisal is a

systematic approach to improving individual and team performance inorder to achieve Organisational goals. Performance appraisal in the

process of trying to bring the rewards which individual into line with those

required by the organization.

Performance appraisal is creating a shared vision of the purpose

and aims of the organization, helping each individual employee to

understand and organize at their part in contributing to them thereby

managing and enhancing the performance of both individuals and the

organization.

A properly developed appraisal process can serve as a contract

between the team members and the team. It informs people about

whats expected and how performance will be appraised.

During the appraisal period, an effective appraisal tool and process

can help determine what the individual or team member must start doing,

continue doing, or stop to be more effective. This serves and important

developmental function that may suggest training to improve the ability

to perform.

1


8/61

But suppose an individual has the skills to do the job but is still not

performing. The issue is likely motivation or lock of motivation. Since

the elements of an effective motivation strategy include feedback, goal

setting, team problem solving, and incentives, performance appraisal is

the tool to ensure these elements fully motivate the team members and

an individual.

For example, feedback given periodically helps ensure that the

team and the individual knows how he or she id doing. Goals are set that

specify what the team member or individual should be doing. The team

participates in problem solving barriers that impede productivity.

Finally, decisions about how to equitably allocate incentives are made

contingent on a fair appraisal of performance.

By using the techniques and applying the skills individual and the

team can construct a meaningful appraisal tools and use a process that

serves the purposes you want purposes like clarifying expected

performance, focusing teamwork, reviewing progress, and developingperformance. And the team can use the tool for continuous improvement

of performance and development of potential to perform more complex

tasks. All this means better job results.

2


9/61

NEED OF THE STUDY :

The question those inevitably arise in performance appraisal

is what does we appraise. The answer is both whatand the how. What

refers to he goals, objectives, and quantitative key results that the team

and each individual is expected to contribute. The how refers to the

performance behaviors that are important in promoting teamwork and

achieving the team goals in a collaborative fashion.

Objectives of the Study:

Primary Objective:

To study the effectiveness of performance appraisal system in

Fleming Laboratories Limited.

Secondary Objectives:

Understand the awareness on the existing key performance areas.

Whether training program is relevant to the job and

To identify whether the objectives/ targets are fixed according to

performance and also employee contribution

3


10/61

SAMPLING

Sampling Techniques

Analytical techniques are used to obtain findings and arrange

information in a logical sequence from the raw data collected. After tabulation

of data the researcher used the following quantitative Techniques

1) Percentage Method

2) Chi square Method

3) Graphs

1) Percentage Method:

Percentage method is a special kind of ration, which is used in

making comparison between two or more series of data. Percentages are

used to describe relationships. Percentages can also be used to compare

the relative terms, the distribution of two or more series of data.

2) Chi-square Test:

The Chi-square test is an important test amongst the several tests

of significance developed by statisticians. Chi-square is a statistical

measure used in the context of sampling analysis for comparing a

variance to a theoretical variance. As a non-parametric test, it can be

used to determine if categorical used to make comparisons between

theoretical populations and actual data when categories are used. Thus,

the Chi-square test is applicable in large number of problems. The test is,

in fact, a technique through the use of which it is possible for all

researches to (i) test the goodness of fit; (ii) test the significance of

association between two attributes, and (iii) test the homogeneity or the

significance of population variance.

4


11/61

Formula:

2= (O-E) 2 / E

O=Observed Frequency

E=Expected Frequency

3) Weighted Average Method:

In the case of data involving ranking and rating scales, Weighted

Average Method has been used. The net score of each attribute or factors

is calculated and analysis can be done on the basis of net score

percentage obtained.

Net Score= (Weighted for the column X No. of respondents in thatcolumn)

Total

weight

4) Graphs:

Researcher used pie graphs to get clear look at the tabulated data.

Sampling Units

H0: there is no significance difference between training

needs and traits evaluated.

H1: there is significance difference between training needsand traits evaluated.

5


12/61

Observed Frequencies:

Expected Frequencies:

21.12 0.66 5.94 5.28 33

1.92 0.06 0.54 0.48 03

2.56 0.08 0.72 0.64 04

6.4 0.2 1.8 1.6 10

32 01 09 08 50

26 01 03 03 33

01 00 01 01 03

02 00 02 00 04

03 00 03 04 10

32 01 09 08 50

6


13/61

O E (O-E) (O-E) 2

(O-E) 2 /E

26 21.12 4.88 23.81 1.127

1 0.66 0.34 0.115 0.175

3 5.94 -2.94 8.643 1.4553 5.28 -2.28 5.198 0.984

1 1.92 -0.92 0.0036 0.44

0 0.06 -0.06 0.2116 0.06

1 0.54 0.46 0.2704 0.391

1 0.48 0.52 0.3136 0.563

2 2.56 -0.56 0.0064 0.12

0 0.08 -0.08 1.6384 0.08

2 0.72 1.28 0.4096 2.275

0 0.64 -0.64 0.64 0.64

3 6.4 -3.4 11.56 1.806

0 0.2 -0.2 0.04 0.2

3 1.8 1.2 1.44 0.8

4 1.6 2.4 5.76 3.6

Total 14.71

7


14/61

Inferences

Calculated Value=14.71

Degree of freedom=6

Level of significance=5%

Table value=16.919

As the table value is greater than the calculated value, we are accepting

the null hypothesis.

So we conclude, there is no significance difference between training

needs and traits evaluated.

H0: Employees are not aware of Performance Appraisal.

H1: Employees are aware of Performance Appraisal.

O E (O-E) (O-E) 2

(O-E) 2 /E

31 12.5 18.5 342.25 27.38

1 12.5 -11.5 132.25 10.58

9 12.5 -3.5 12.25 0.989 12.5 -3.5 12.25 0.98

Total 39.92

8


15/61

2tab= 7.815

2cal> 2

tab so we reject

We accept H1

So we conclude, Employees aware of performance appraisal.

H0: There is no significance difference between satisfaction and

improvement of performance.

H1: There is significance difference between satisfaction and


Observed Frequencies:

04 00 00 00 04

9


16/61

22 00 03 10 35

06 01 01 00 08

03 00 00 00 03

35 01 04 10 50

Expected Frequencies:

2.8 0.08 0.32 0.8 04

24.5 0.7 2.8 07 35

5.6 0.16 0.64 1.6 08

2.1 0.06 0.24 0.6 03

35 01 04 10 50

O E (O-E) (O-E) 2

(O-E) 2 /E

4 2.8 1.2 1.44 0.51

0 0.08 -0.08 0.006 0.08

0 0.32 -0.32 0.1024 0.32

0 0.8 -0.8 0.64 0.8

22 24.5 2.5 6.25 0.25

0 0.7 -0.7 0.49 0.7

3 2.8 0.2 0.04 0.01

10 7 3 9 1.28

6 5.6 0.4 0.16 0.02

1 0.16 0.84 0.705 4.41

1 0.64 0.36 0.129 0.202

0 1.6 -1.6 2.56 1.6

3 2.1 0.9 0.81 0.38

0 0.06 -0.06 0.0036 0.06

0 0.24 -0.24 0.0576 0.24

0 0.6 -0.6 0.36 0.6

Total 11.462

10


17/61

Inferences

Calculated Value=11.462

Degree of freedom=6

Level of significance=5%

Table value=16.919

As the table value is greater than the calculated value, we are

accepting the null hypothesis.

So we conclude, there is no significance difference between

satisfaction and improvement of performance.

SOURCES OF DATA:

11


18/61

Mainly there are two kinds of sources of data. They are known as Primary

and Secondary data.

Primary data:

Primary data constitutes collecting data from all officers and supervisors

in different departments to know their view about existing system and

recommendations & suggestions through prepared questionnaire. It

constitutes direct approach to the employees and knowing their personal

views and suggestions.

Secondary Data:

Secondary data constitutes organization profile, HR systems in the

organization and collecting data from various records maintained by the

personnel department and manuals of the organization.

Data collection tools:

The questionnaire is descriptive in nature. As it is necessary ot know the

job satiafaction levels, survey method is adopted with the help of

structured qustionaire.

12


19/61

Scope Of the Study:

1. To measure the awareness of present Performance Appraisal

System in three areas Office, Unit-I and Unit-III.

2. To measure training needs fulfilled by M/s. Fleming Laboratories

Limited in developing the Employees career.

3. To check the satisfaction level of Employee in present Performance

Appraisal System

Limitations of the Study:

Time is the major limitation. The whole study was conducted with

in a period of 90days. This period is not enough to gather

information relating to all aspects of the study.

The study does not cover non-executives, some executive staff

and chairman cum-managing director.

Quantitative presentation of data over shadows some Qualitative

but important issues.

Only the existing system has been studied and no attempt has

been made to identify new and dynamic Performance Appraisal

System due to time constraints.

This research thus leaves further scope for further study.

13


20/61

PLAN OF THE STUDY

According to plan of the study the project consist of 6 chapters

1. In Chapter1, the Introduction, Objectives of the study, Scope and

period of the study, Research Methodology, Plan of the study and

Limitations are explained.

2. In Chapter 2, gives the information about the Industry

3. In Chapter 3 , gives the information about the Company

4. In Chapter 4, Conceptual frame work

5. In Chapter 5, Data analysis and Interpretation is done.

6. In Chapter 6, Findings& Suggestions.

1


21/61

INDUSTRY PROFILE

1


22/61

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

The pharmaceutical industry is a knowledge drive

industry and is heavily dependent on research and

development of new products and growth. However, basic

results (discovering new molecules) are time consuming

and expensive process and are thus, dominated by large

global multi nationals. Indian companies have recentlyentered the area and initial results have been

encouraging.

Patents play an important role in encouraging

research and development. The new W.T.O rules imply

that India will have to switch to a product patent regime

post 2005 from its current process patent regime. This

would alter the scenario in the Indian market over the

next 10-15 years.

In the global pharmaceutical market western markets

are the largest and fastest growing due to introduction of

newer molecules at high prices. A well-established

reimbursement and insurance system implies that per

capital drug expenditure is abnormally high in western

countries as compared to the developing nations.

2


23/61

The Indian pharmaceutical industry highly

fragmented, but has grown rapidly due to the friendly

patent regime and low cost manufacturing structure.

Intense competition high volumes and low prices

characterize the Indian domestic market. Exports have

been rising around at 30% CAGR over last

5years.there is a shift in export profile towards value

added formulations from the low value bulk drugs.

The drug pricing control order (DPCO) has been the

milestone around the neck of Indian industry as it has

severely restricted profitability and hence innovation.

However, the government has been relaxing control in a

slow but progressive manner. The span of control of DPCO

has come down from 90% to 50% and is likely to be

further reduced as per latest proposed changes.

In the domestic market, old mature categories like

Ineffective, vitamins, analgesics, are degrading or

stagnating while new life categories like cardio-vascular,

CNS ant diabetic are growing at double-digit rays. The

growth of a company in the domestic market is thus

critically dependent on its therapeutic presence.

3


24/61

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL

INDUSTRY

Pharmaceuticals are medicinally effective chemicals,

which are converted to dosage forms suitable for patients

to imbibe. In its basic chemical form, pharmaceuticals are

called bulk drugs and the final dosage forms are known as

formulations. Bulk drugs are derived from four types of

intermediates (raw materials), namely

Plant derivatives (herbal products )

Animal derivatives ex:- insulin extracted from bovine

pancreas

Synthetic chemicals

Bio-genetics (human derivatives) ex:-human insulin

INDUSTRY SCENARIO

GLOBAL SCENARIO

The developed countries like Western Europe, Japan

and us are the markets. Higher purchasing power and a

well-developed health insurances and reimbursement

4


25/61

system implies that the value of drugs sold is much higher

there. Growth I these markets is also higher blockbuster

drugs drive growth.

INDIAN SCENARIO

There are more than 20,000 registered pharmaceutical

manufactures exist in the country. The market share of

the MNCs has fallen from 75% to around 35% in the

Indian pharmaceuticals market, while the share of Indiancompanies has increased from 20% to nearly 65%. PSUS

have almost lost out completely. The sector has

undergone several policies as well as attitudinal changes

over the past 2 years.

In Indian pharmaceuticals sector are highly

fragmented with more than 20,000 registered units. It has

increased drastically in the last two decades. The leading

250 pharmaceutical companies control 70% of themarkets with the market leader having nearly 7% of the

market share. It is an extremely fragments market with

severe price competition and government price control.

5


26/61

EXTERNAL TRADE

In India pharmaceutical industry is highly regulated.

The government controls prices of a large number of bulkdrugs and formulations. Profit margins of player vary

widely in both domestic and exports sales due to many

factors.

FUTURE PROSPECTS

As per W.T.O from the year 2005 India will grantproduct patent recognition to all new chemical entities

(NECs) i.e., bulk drugs developed then onwards.

STRATEGIES OF DOMESTIC PLAYERS

Most of the domestic companies are expanding the

therapeutic reach through a new product launches high

margin segments, thus enhancing the product portfolio

and increasing the critical mass. The long-term objective

will be to enter into higher platform of biotechnology and

drug delivery systems.

GROWTH OF PHARAMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IN INDIA

6


27/61

As the turn or century the Indian drug industry has

set up through the pioneering works of scientists like

Acharya .p, Cray, and professor T.K.Gujjar. However afterindependence the nascent Indian Pharma industry could

not evolve to meaningful levels of function. Bulk drugs

were imported, glaxo, Pfizer, parka-Davi ruled the roost-

drugs like streptomycin and tetramycin which were sold

without the cutting edge of competitive antagonism at

four times the MRP.

This was followed by acute shortages of drugs

following indirect cartelization of the Industry. This lead to

the inclination towards cartelization of the industry. This

leads to inclination towards indigenous production.

Hindustan and biotic was set up with W.H.O and UNCF in

1954. Subsequently Indian drugs and pharmaceuticals(IDPL) were set up with soviet technology in 1961.

With the setting up of Indian public sector, antibiotic

prices came crashing down in some cases by 60% to 70%.

The MNCs in order to survive in the market slashed their

prices.

Interestingly, it was in this period where the public

sector started basic drugs in India. In 1960s the Indian

private sector also stated growing. Unlike the foreign

7


28/61

sector, they also setup substantial capacities for

production of bulk drugs.

With the introduction of patent act 1970 this sector

began to bloom. This act allowed Indian companies to

register product if proved that the process used was

marginally different from the original product manufacture

of the MNCs simultaneously. FERA ensures that MNCs

were restricted in their equity above 40% .The

government also insisted that 10% of production in actual

line of formulations should be for bulk drugs in case of

MNCS.

Patent act 1970 had its own demerits, but this act

definitely helped Indian Pharma companies to part

learning to copy the molecular structure of compounds.

8


29/61

COMPANY

PROFILE

9


30/61

Introduction of the company:

FLEMING LABORATORIES LIMITED is 90% export oriented high

quality bulk drug manufacturing company located at Gummadidala,

Medak District near by Hyderabad. Fleming is a major manufacturer of

CINNARZINE, FLUNARINE HCL, and CYPROHEPTADINE HCL LOPERAMIDE

HCL. Well-experienced and skilled personnel are continuously working

round the clock in various departments in FLEMING.

Fleming Laboratories limited is accommodated with two production

blocks and separate dryers room. A massive stores building is

constructed near the production block for solid raw material andengineering items. There is a separate solvent store building is provided

behind of the Production block -2.

A wide quality control laboratory includes incoming material, in

process material, finished product testing rooms are provided and stability

studies/documentation room as well as equipped instrumentation rooms is

also there with Quality control department in an adjacent building. WHO

GMP standard Pharma Block is developed nears the quality control

laboratory. Air handling system with 30 air changes as per specification is

recently coined in Pharma area where the Pharma is handled. Which is

included the centrifuge area, drier room and Pharma Block.

A Good lunch room and separate security room are built near the

main gate. A spacious and isolated electrical room including DG Set room

is built at the center of the plant and a separate utility block is provided

adjacent to the boiler house. A beautiful flower garden is developed in

front of the lunchroom. An excellent flower garden along with fruit garden

is developed beside the Raw material stores.

1


31/61

A systematic effluent tank with stage wise separation and two

forced evaporators are provided at one corner of the plan. The entire

plant building is provided with good ventilation, sufficient entry and wide

windows. All of the employees and casual helpers are being taken for

periodical medical check-up. Personnel department is taking special care

about Uniform, all types of safety devices like Shoes, nose masks, full

masks, eye wash showers, separate Pharma dresses, first aid box,

drinking water, traveling facilities and house keeping.

2


32/61

DATA ANALYSIS

1


33/61

TABULATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

The analysis is done on the response collected from50 employees

of different carders in FLEMING LABORATORIES Ltd.The data generated

from the employee responses were coded,edited,summarized, tabulated

and with a concomitant elucidation in terms of pie charts. Where ever

needed and based on there crystallized data,findings were listed and

based on these findings,apt,apposite and approoriate recommendations

were made to the organization under whose aegis and auspices,the

present project was under taken.

From the survey was found that-most of the employees are satisfied

with companys training policies.But same employees are engulfed with

dissatisfaction regarding training aid,number of class work and low morale

regarding the trining methods.

1


34/61

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 1:

Are you fully aware of performance appraisal

Inference: Out of total 50 of employees 31 i.e., 75% have given Yes

and 01 i.e., 2% has given No, 01 i.e., 2% has given Cant Say and 9

i.e., 21% has given To Some Extent.

75%

2%

2%

21%Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

No. OfRespondents

Percentage

Yes 31 75%

No 1 2%

Cant Say 1 2%

To Some Extent 9 21%

Total 50 100

2


35/61

Table 2:

Is the present scoring procedure systematic enough


and 01 i.e., 2% has given No, 11 i.e., 22% has given Cant Say and 08


60%

2%

22%

16%

Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

No. Of respondents Percentage

Yes 30 60%

No 1 2%

Cant Say 11 22%


Total 50 100

3


36/61

Table 3:

Are you aware of Key Performance Area (KPA)

Inference: Out of total 50 of employees 36 i.e., 72% have given Yes and

03 i.e., 6% has given No, 03 i.e., 6% has given Cant Say and 08 i.e., 16%

has given To Some Extent.

72%

6%

6%

16%Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 4:

No. OfRespondents

Percentage

Yes 36 72%

No 3 6%

Cant Say 3 6%


Total 50 100

4


37/61


38/61

Is the contribution of Middle level executive taken intoconsideration in Key Performance Area (KPA)


and 07 i.e. 14% has given No, 04 i.e., 8% has given Cant Say and

19 i.e., 38% has given To Some Extent.

40%

14%8%

38% Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 6:

To what extent are you satisfied with the grading system

No. OfRespondents

Percentage

Yes 20 40%

No 7 14%

Cant Say 4 8%


Total 50 100

6


39/61

Inference: Out of total 50 of employees 4 i.e., 8% have given Fully

and 35 i.e. 70% has given To some extent, 08 i.e., 16% has given

Cant Say and 3 i.e., 6% has given Not satisfied.

8%

70%

16%6%

Fully

To Some Extebt

Can't Say

Not Satisfied

Table 7:

No. OfRespondents

Percentage

Fully 4 8%


Cant Say 8 16%

Not Satisfied 3 6%

Total 50 100

7


40/61

Do the training and development needs of executives are

considered during PAS


and 3 i.e. 6% has given No, 4 i.e., 8% has given Cant Say and 10 i.e.,

20% has given To Some Extent.

66%6%

8%

20%

Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 8:

Does the performance appraisal system contribute in improving

the performance of an employee

No. Of

RespondentsPercentage

Yes 33 66%

No 3 6%

Cant Say 4 8%


Total 50 100

8


41/61

Inference: Out of total 50 of employees 34 i.e., 70% have given

Yes and 02 i.e. 4% has given No, 02 i.e., 4% has given Cant Say

and 11 i.e., 22% has given To Some Extent

70%4%

4%

22%Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 9:

Do you traits evaluated/assessed in the PerformanceAppraisal forms help to identify training & development

needs

No. Of Respondents Percentage

Yes 34 70%

No 2 4%

Cant Say 2 4%


Total 50 100

9


42/61

Inference: Out of total 50 of employees 32 i.e., 64% have given Yes,

01 i.e., 2% has given No, 09 i.e., 18% has given Cant Say and 08


64%2%

18%

16%Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 10:

Does the setting of tasks/targets help you in understandingour job/expectation from you


Yes 32 64%

No 1 2%

Cant Say 9 18%


Total 50 100

10


43/61

Inference: Out of total 50 of employees 35 i.e., 70% have given Yesand 04 i.e. 6% has given No, 4 i.e., 8% has given Cant Say and 08


70%

6%

8%16%

Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 11:

Do you think rewards are linked to our appraisal grade

No. OfRespondents

Percentage

Yes 35 70%

No 3 6%

Cant Say 4 8%


Total 50 100

11


44/61

Inference:Out of total 50 of employees 19 i.e., 38% have given Yesand 03 i.e., 6% has given No, 12 i.e., 24% has given Cant Say and 16

i.e., 32% has given To Some Extent

38%

6%24%

32% Yes

NoCan't Say

To Some Extent

Table 12:

No. Of

RespondentsPercentage

Yes 19 38%

No 3 6%

Cant Say 12 24%


Total 50 100

12


45/61

Is the Employees are Cooperating themselves for reaching

the target

Inference: out of total 50 of employees 36 i.e., 72% have given Yes

and 02 i.e. 4% has given No, 02 i.e., 4% has given Cant Say and 10


72%

4%

4%

20%Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 13:


Yes 36 72%

No 2 4%

Cant Say 2 4%


Total 50 100

13


46/61

Do you satisfied with the system of planning vs procedurefor setting tasks/ targets


01 i.e. 2% has given No, 04 i.e., 8% has given Cant Say and 17 i.e.,


56%

2%8%

34% Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 14:

Are the measures taken this year to improve theperformance of executives more satisfactory in comparison

to previous years

No. OfRespondents

Percentage

Yes 28 56%

No 1 2%

Cant Say 4 8%


Total 50 100

14


47/61

Inference: Out of total 50 of employees 17 i.e., 34% have given Yes, 07

i.e. 10% has given No, 11 i.e., 22% has given Cant Say and 17 i.e.,


34%

10%22%

34% Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

Table 15:

Do you have any suggestions on the appraisal conducted oncein a year


Yes 17 34%

No 5 10%

Cant Say 11 22%


Total 50 100

15


48/61


14 i.e. 28% has given No and 26 i.e., 52% has given Cant Say.

20%

28%

52%

Yes

No

Can't Say

Table 16:

Do you have any suggestions on the method of AdverseRemarks and subsequent action taken?


Yes 10 20%

No 14 28%

Cant Say 26 52%

Total 50 100

16


49/61

Inference: Out of total 50 of employees 04 i.e., 8% have given Yes, 24

i.e. 48% has given No and 22 i.e., 44% has given Cant Say.

8%

48%

44% Yes

No

Can't Say

Table 17:

Is there any mechanism to convey your suggestions to TopManagement

No. OfRespondents

Percentage

Yes 04 8%

No 24 48%

Cant Say 22 44%

Total 50 100

17


50/61


07 i.e. 14% has given No, 01 i.e., 2% has given Cant Say and 10 i.e.,


64%14%

2%

20%Yes

No

Can't Say

To Some Extent

No. OfRespondents

Percentage

Yes 32 64%

No 07 14%

Cant Say 01 2%


Total 50 100

18


51/61

FINDINGS

&

SUGGESTIONS

1


52/61

FINDINGS:

75% are aware on existing Performance Appraisal System.

60% are satisfied on present scoring procedure.

72% of employees are aware of Key Performance Area.

66% are satisfied on present training and development needs.

70% of employees feel that the grading system is to some extent.

70% of employees feel that the contribution of performance

appraisal system is developing employees performance.

70% feel tasks/ targets given are perfect. 38% feel rewards are based on appraisal grade.

56% of employees are satisfied with the system of planning vs.

procedure for setting tasks/ targets.

52% of employees are unable to say about appraisal done once in a

year.

72% of employees feel that cooperating themselves for reaching

the target.

40% of employees feel that the contribution of Middle level

executive taken into consideration in Key Performance Area (KPA).

There is no significance difference between training needs & traits

evaluated/ assessed.

There is no significance difference between satisfaction and


1


53/61

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTION

Performance reviews are to be done periodically

It should focus more on the training needs and responsibility

change over

Appraisals have to be made cadre wise and salary structure have to

be fixed according to the cadre

Performance appraisal should be conducted once in six months

A good number of middle level executives are not satisfied with this

ceiling prescribed the distribution of middle level executives in the

grading system. As a consequence some middle level executives

inherently are graded below their actual performance rating in

order to fulfill the quota numbers allotted to each grade.

Many middle level executives felt that the real training needs of

employees was still not being met and subsequently were only

satisfied to a certain extent, for that the company has to improve

the training facilities.

Further improvements can be made to performance appraisal

systems that would subsequently help appraises to further

appreciate and acknowledge the importance of the performance

appraisal system.

2


54/61

3


55/61

CONCLUSION:

The topic of the survey is A study on the effectiveness of

performance appraisal system of middle level executives at Fleming

Laboratories Limited.

The study have been undertaken to find the effectiveness of PAS at

Fleming Laboratories for middle level executives.

About 50 middle level executives have been taken survey to findout effectiveness of PAS.

Statistical tools like chi- square analysis, percentage analysis method are

used to analyse the data.

From the study we found that the performance appraisal system

provided to the employees of Fleming Laboratories is effective.

1


56/61

ANNEXURE

1


57/61

Questionnaire on Performance Appraisal System

For Middle Level Executives

At

Fleming Laboratories Limited

Dear Sir,

This questionnaire is aimed at evaluating the present appraisal

system and to study of middle level executives in M/ s Fleming

Laborataries Limited. The data collected will be used only for academic

purpose and will be kept confident.

Part-I

Designation

Age

Qualification

Department

Part-II

1) Are you fully aware of Performance Appraisal System (PAS) in your

company?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent2) Is the present scoring procedure systematic enough?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent3) Are you aware of key Performance Area (KPA)?

a)Yes b)No c) cant say d) To some extent4) Before putting up key Performance Area (KPA) do your senior

discuss with you?

a) Yes b) No c) cant say d) To some extent5) Is the contribution of middle level executive taken into

consideration in key Performance Area (KPA)?

a) Yes b) No c) cant say d) To some extent

6) To what extent are you satisfied with the grading system?

a) Yes b) No c) cant say d) To some extent

1


58/61

7) Do the training and development needs of middle level executives

are considered during Performance Appraisal System (PAS)?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent8) Does the Performance Appraisal System contribute in improving the

performance of an employee?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent9) Do your traits evaluated / assessed in the Performance Appraisal

forms help to identify training and development needs?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent10) Does the setting of tasks/targets help you in understanding your

job/ expectations from you?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent11) Do you think rewards are linked to your appraisal grade ?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent12) Is the employees are co-operating them selves for reaching the

target?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent13) Are you satisfied with the system of planning Vs procedure for

setting tasks/targets?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extentIf no,

why?-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14) Are the measures taken this year to improve the performance of

middle level executives ,more satisfactory in comparison to previous

years?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)To some extent

2


59/61

15) Do you have any suggestions on the appraisal conducted once in a

year ?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say

If yes , please

specify-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

16) Do you have any suggestions on the method of adverse remarks

and subsequent action taken?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say

If yes , please

specify-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

17) If there any mechanism to convey your suggestions to top

management?

a)Yes b)No c)cant say d)Not satisfied

Thank you.

3


60/61

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1


61/61

BIBLOGRAPHY

1. Human Resource Development-P.C.Tripati

2. Human Resource Management-C.B.Gupta

3. Personnel Management-Mammoria

4. Appraising and Developing

Managerial Performance -T.V.Rao

5. www.businessballs.com

main progect

Documents