INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION

2. COMPANY PROFILE

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

4. QUESTIONNAIRE

5. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

6. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF ONGC

FOUNDATION

In august, 1956 oil and natural gas commission was formed, raised from a mere directorate status to commission, it had enhanced powered, in 1959 these powers were further enhanced by converting commission into a statutory body act by an act of Indian parliament. Major functions of ONGC according to this provision were to plan, promote, organize and implement programs for development of petroleum resources and the production and sale of petroleum and its products.

1947 – 1960

During the pre-independence period, the Assam Oil Company in the northeastern and Attock Oil company in northwestern part of the undivided India were the only oil companies producing oil in the country, with minimal exploration input. The major part of Indian sedimentary basins was deemed to be unfit for development of oil and gas resources.

After independence, the national Government realized the importance oil and gas for rapid industrial development and its strategic role in defense. Consequently, while framing the Industrial Policy Statement of 1948, the development of petroleum industry in the country was considered to be of utmost necessity. Until 1955, private oil companies mainly carried out exploration of hydrocarbon resources of India. In Assam, the Assam Oil Company was producing oil at Digboi (discovered in 1889) and the Oil India Ltd. (a 50% joint venture between Government of India and Burmah Oil Company) was engaged in developing two newly discovered large fields Naharkatiya and Moran in Assam. In West Bengal, the Indo-Stanvac Petroleum project (a joint venture between Government of India and Standard Vacuum Oil Company of USA) was engaged in exploration work.

In 1955, Government of India decided to develop the oil and natural gas resources in the various regions of the country as part of the Public Sector development. With this objective, an Oil and Natural Gas Directorate was set up towards the end of 1955, as a subordinate office under the then Ministry of Natural Resources and Scientific Research.

A delegation under the leadership of Mr. K D Malviya, the then Minister of Natural Resources, visited several European countries to study the status of oil industry in those countries and to facilitate the training of Indian professionals for exploring potential oil and gas reserves. Foreign experts from USA, West Germany, Romania and erstwhile U.S.S.R visited India and helped the government with their expertise. Finally, the visiting Soviet experts drew up a detailed plan for geological and geophysical surveys and drilling operations to be carried out in the 2nd Five Year Plan (1956-57to1960-61).

In April 1956, the Government of India adopted the Industrial Policy Resolution, which placed mineral oil industry among the schedule 'A’ industries. Soon, after the formation of the Oil and Natural Gas Directorate, it became apparent that it would not be possible for the Directorate with its limited financial and administrative powers as subordinate office of the Government, to function efficiently. So in August, 1956, the Directorate was raised to the

status of a commission with enhanced powers, although it continued to be under the government. In October 1959, the Commission was converted into a statutory body by an act of the Indian Parliament, which enhanced powers of the commission further. The main functions of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission subject to the provisions of the Act, were "to plan, promote, organize and implement programmes for development of Petroleum Resources and the production and sale of petroleum and petroleum products produced by it, and to perform such other functions as the Central Government may, from time to time, assign to it ". The act further outlined the activities and steps to be taken by ONGC in fulfilling its mandate.

1961 - 1990

Since its inception, ONGC has been instrumental in transforming the country's limited upstream sector into a large viable playing field, with its activities spread throughout India and significantly in overseas territories. In the inland areas, ONGC not only found new resources in Assam but also established new oil province in Cambay basin (Gujarat), ONGC went offshore in early 70's and discovered a giant oil field in the form of Bombay High, now known as Mumbai High. This discovery, along with subsequent discoveries of huge oil and gas fields in Western offshore changed the oil scenario of the country. Subsequently, over 5 billion tonnes of hydrocarbons, which were present in the country, were discovered.

After 1990

The liberalized economic policy, adopted by the Government of India in July 1991, sought to deregulate and de-license the core sectors (including petroleum sector) with partial disinvestments.

After the conversion of business of the erstwhile Oil & Natural Gas Commission to that of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited in 1993, the Government disinvested 2 per cent of its shares through competitive bidding. Subsequently,

During March 1999, ONGC, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) - a downstream giant and Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) - the only gas marketing company, agreed to have cross holding in each other's stock. This paved the way for long-term strategic alliances both for the domestic and overseas business opportunities in the energy value chain, amongst themselves. Consequent to this the Government sold off 10 per cent of its shareholding in ONGC to IOC and 2.5 per cent to GAIL. In the year 2002-03, after taking over MRPL from the A V Birla Group, ONGC diversified into the downstream sector. ONGC will soon be entering into the retailing business. ONGC has also entered the global field through its subsidiary, ONGC Videsh Ltd. (OVL). ONGC has made major investments in Vietnam, Sakhalin and Sudan and earned its first hydrocarbon revenue.

VISION AND MISSION

VISION

To be a World–Class Oil and Gas Company integrated in Energy business with dominant Indian leadership and Global presence.

MISSION

WORLD CLASS

• Dedicated to excellence by leveraging competitive advantages in R&D and Technology with involved people.

• Imbibe high standards of business ethics and organizational values.

• Abiding commitment to health, safety and environment to enrich quality of community life.

• Foster a culture of trust, openness and mutual concern to working a stimulating and challenging experience for our people.

• Strive for customer delight through quality products and services.

INTEGRATED IN ENERGY BUSINESS

• Focus on domestic and international oil and gas exploration and production business opportunities.

• Provide value linkages in other sectors of energy business.

• Create growth opportunities and maximize shareholder value.

DOMINANT INDIAN LEADERSHIP

• Retain dominant position in Indian Petroleum Sector and enhance India’s energy availability.

ETHICS & COMMITMENT STATEMENT

We commit to realize the corporate vision of making ONGC a World–class Oil and Gas Company integrated in Energy business with dominant Indian leadership and Global presence.

We treasure integrity and transparency as the core value in all our business dealings with our Core Competence - Courage to Explore, Knowledge to Exceed and Technology to Excel, we shall work towards sustained growth of our Organization.

We are responsible for the assets and the business of the Company in fair, diligent and ethical manner

We must act within the bounds of the authority conferred upon us, and make and enact informed decisions and policies in the best interests of the Company.

We shall act in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, in a manner that excludes considerations of personal advantage, and will not compromise our commitment to honesty and integrity in all aspects of our business.

We are committed to the pursuit of excellence, in all our endeavors.

COMPANY PROFILE

Global Ranking

• ONGC ranks 3rd Oil & Gas Exploration & Production (E&P) Company in the world and 23rd among leading global energy majors as per Platts 250 Global Energy Companies List for the year 2009 .

• ONGC ranks 24th among the Global publicly-listed Energy companies as per ‘PFC Energy 50” (Jan 2008)

• Finance Asia 100 list ranks ONGC no 1 among Indian Blue Chips.

• Occupies 155th rank in “Forbes Global 2000” list 2010 of the world’s biggest companies for 2010 based on sales, profits, assets and market capitalization.

• ONGC ranked 402nd position as per Fortune Global 500 - 2009 list; based on revenues, profits, assets and shareholder’s equity.

Represents India’s Energy Security

ONGC has single-handedly scripted India’s hydrocarbon saga by:

• Establishing 6.89 billion tonnes of In-place hydrocarbon reserves with more than 300 discoveries of oil and gas; in fact, 6 out of the 7 producing basins have been discovered by ONGC: out of these In-place hydrocarbons in domestic acreages, Ultimate Reserves are 2.42 Billion Metric tonnes (BMT) of Oil Plus Oil Equivalent Gas (O+OEG).

•Cumulatively produced 803 Million Metric Tonnes (MMT) of crude and 485 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM) of Natural Gas, from 111 fields.

•ONGC has bagged 120 of the 238 Blocks (more than 50%) awarded in the 8 rounds of bidding, under the New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP) of the Indian Government. ONGC has bagged 17 out of 31 blocks awarded in NELP round VIII (14 as operator).

• ONGC’s wholly-owned subsidiary ONGC Videsh Ltd. (OVL) is the biggest Indian multinational, with 40 Oil & Gas projects (9 of them producing) in 15 countries, i.e. Vietnam, Sudan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Myanmar, Libya, Cuba, Colombia, Nigeria, Nigeria Sao Tome JDZ, Egypt, Brazil, Syria and Venezuela. OVL had invested around Rs 50,000 Crores (Approx. 10 billion US dollars).

Pioneering Efforts

ONGC is the only fully–integrated petroleum company in India, operating along the entire hydrocarbon value chain:

• Holds largest share of hydrocarbon acreages in India.

• Contributes over 79 per cent of Indian’s oil and gas production.

• Refining capacity of about 12 MMTPA.

• Created a record of sorts by turning Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited around from being a stretcher case for referral to BIFR to the BSE Top 30, within a year.

• Interests in LNG and product transportation business.

Competitive Strength

All crudes are sweet and most (76%) are light, with sulphur percentage ranging from 0.02-0.10, API gravity range 26°-46° and hence attract a premium in the market.Strong intellectual property base, information, knowledge, skills and experience.

• Maximum number of Exploration Licenses, including competitive NELP rounds. ONGC has bagged 120 of the 238 Blocks awarded in the 8 rounds of bidding, under the New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP) of the Indian Government. ONGC has begged 17 out of 31 blocks awarded in NELP round VIII (14 as operator).

• ONGC owns and operates more than 22000 kilometers of pipelines in India, including nearly 4500 kilometers of sub-sea pipelines. No other company in India operates even 50 per cent of this route length.

Strategic Vision: 2001-2020

To focus on core business of E&P, ONGC has set strategic objectives of:

Doubling reserves (i.e. accreting 6 billion tonnes of O+OEG). Improving average recovery from 28 per cent to 40 per cent. Tie-up 20 MMTPA of equity Hydrocarbon from abroad.

The focus of management will be to monetize the assets as well as to assetize the money.

Performance appraisal

The performance appraisal process is a process that evaluates employee performance.  Normally it compares quality, quantity, cost, and time.  Some of the things that performance appraisal are used to do would be.

Give something tangible to the employee regarding their work performance. Shows what training employees need. Determines what the employees raise might be.

There are some other things that performance appraisals do; these are just some of them.

There are some procedures that you should put in work at your work place. This will help the employees know what you are expecting of them, and also establish a standard within your work that everyone will be able to understand and follow.  Some of these things would be listed here.

Establishing performance standards Communicate standards and expectations Set up a system that measures actual performance Compare employee with the standards implemented Discuss results with employee Make a decision on what you are going to do, or take corrective action.

Now as an employee, you should not get nervous when you hear anything about a performance appraisal or review.  As long as you have tried as hard as you can and done everything in your capability to do your job duties, you can take what you hear from you

employer and use it to help yourself.  You can take what your employer tells you about the appraisal and use it to help you do your job better.

Aims

Generally, the aims of a performance appraisal are to:

Give employees feedback on performance.

Identify employee training needs

Document criteria used to allocate organizational rewards

Form a basis for personnel decisions: salary increases, promotions, disciplinary actions, bonuses, etc.

Provide the opportunity for organizational diagnosis and development

Facilitate communication between employee and administration

Validate selection techniques and human resource policies to meet federal Equal Employment Opportunity requirements.

To improve performance through counseling, coaching and development.

Methods

A common approach to assessing performance is to use a numerical or scalar rating system whereby managers are asked to score an individual against a number of objectives/attributes. In some companies, employees receive assessments from their manager, peers, subordinates, and customers, while also performing a self-assessment. This is known as a 360-degree appraisal and forms good communication patterns.

The most popular methods used in the performance appraisal process include the following:

TRADITIONAL METHODS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

1.ESSAY APPRAISAL METHOD

This traditional form of appraisal, also known as "Free Form method" involves a description of the performance of an employee by his superior. The description is an evaluation of the performance of any individual based on the facts and often includes examples and evidences to support the information.

2. STRAIGHT RANKING METHOD

This is one of the oldest and simplest techniques of performance appraisal. In this method, the appraiser ranks the employees from the best to the poorest on the basis of their overall performance. It is quite useful for a comparative evaluation.

3. PAIRED COMPARISON

A better technique of comparison than the straight ranking method, this method compares each employee with all others in the group, one at a time. After all the comparisons on the basis of the overall comparisons, the employees are given the final rankings.

4. CRITICAL INCIDENTS METHODS

In this method of Performance appraisal, the evaluator rates the employee on the basis of critical events and how the employee behaved during those incidents. It includes both negative and positive points. The drawback of this method is that the supervisor has to note down the critical incidents and the employee behavior as and when they occur.

5. FIELD REVIEW

In this method, a senior member of the HR department or a training officer discusses and interviews the supervisors to evaluate and rate their respective subordinates. A major drawback of this method is that it is a very time consuming method.

6. CHECKLIST METHOD

The rater is given a checklist of the descriptions of the behavior of the employees on job. The checklist contains a list of statements on the basis of which the rater describes the on the job performance of the employees.

7. GRAPHIC RATING SCALE

In this method, an employee’s quality and quantity of work is assessed in a graphic scale indicating different degrees of a particular trait. The factors taken into consideration include both the personal characteristics and characteristics related to the on the job performance of the employees. For example a trait like Job Knowledge may be judged on the range of average, above average, outstanding or unsatisfactory.

8. FORCED DISTRIBUTION

To eliminate the element of bias from the rater’s ratings, the evaluator is asked to distribute the employees in some fixed categories of ratings like on a normal distribution curve. The rater chooses the appropriate fit for the categories on his own discretion.

MODERN METHODS OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES

Management by Objectives (MBO) is a process of agreeing upon objectives within an organization so that management and employees agree to the objectives and understand what they are in the organization.

The term "management by objectives" was first popularized by Peter Drucker in his 1954 book 'The Practice of Management'.[1]

The essence of MBO is participative goal setting, choosing course of actions and decision making. An important part of the MBO is the measurement and the comparison of the employee’s actual performance with the standards set. Ideally, when employees themselves have been involved with the goal setting and the choosing the course of action to be followed by them, they are more likely to fulfill their responsibilities.

UNIQUE FEATURES AND ADVANTAGE OF THE MBO PROCESS

The principle behind Management by Objectives (MBO) is basically for employees to have clarity of the roles and responsibilities expected of them. They then understand the objectives they must do and the overall achievement of the organization. They also help with the personal goals of each employee.

Some of the important features and advantages of MBO are:

Motivation – Involving employees in the whole process of goal setting and increasing employee empowerment increases employee job satisfaction and commitment.

Better communication and Coordination – Frequent reviews and interactions between superiors and subordinates helps to maintain harmonious relationships within the enterprise and also solve many problems faced during the period.

Clarity of goals Subordinates have a higher commitment to objectives that they set themselves than

those imposed on them by their managers. Managers can ensure that objectives of the subordinates are linked to the

organization’s objectives.

360-DEGREE FEEDBACK

In human resources or industrial/organizational psychology, 360-degree feedback, also known as multi-rater feedback, multisource feedback, or multisource assessment, is feedback that comes from all around an employee. "360" refers to the 360 degrees in a circle, with an individual figuratively in the center of the circle. Feedback is provided by subordinates, peers, and supervisors. It also includes a self-assessment and, in some cases, feedback from external sources such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. It may be contrasted with "upward feedback," where managers are given feedback by their direct reports, or a "traditional performance appraisal," where the employees are most often reviewed only by their managers.

The results from 360-degree feedback are often used by the person receiving the feedback to plan training and development. Results are also used by some organizations in making administrative decisions, such as pay or promotion. When this is the case, the 360 assessment is for evaluation purposes, and is sometimes called a "360-degree review." However, there is a great deal of controversy as to whether 360-degree feedback should be used exclusively for development purposes, or should be used for appraisal purposes as well (Waldman et al., 1998). There is also controversy regarding whether 360-degree feedback improves employee performance, and it has even been suggested that it may decrease shareholder value (Pfau & Kay, 2002).

BEHAVIORALLY ANCHORED RATING SCALES

In psychology research on behaviorism, Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) are scales used to report performance. 'BARS are normally presented vertically with scale points ranging from five to nine. It is an appraisal method that aims to combine the benefits of narratives, critical incident incidents, and quantified ratings by anchoring a quantified scale with specific narrative examples of good or poor performance.

BARS Behaviorally Anchored Rating scales is a method that combines elements of the traditional rating scales and critical incidents methods. In order to construct BARS seven steps are followed as mentioned below

Examples of effective and ineffective behavior related to job are collected from people with knowledge of job.

These behaviors are converted in to performance dimensions. A group of participants will be asked to reclassify the incidents. At this stage the

incidents for which there is not 75% agreement are discarded as being too subjective. Then the above mentioned incidents are rated from one to nine on a scale. Finally about six to seven incidents for each performance dimensions- all meeting

retranslation and standard deviation criteria will be used as BARS.

This is by far the best method used for a performance appraisal method

Trait-based systems, which rely on factors such as integrity and conscientiousness, are also commonly used by businesses. The scientific literature on the subject provides evidence that assessing employees on factors such as these should be avoided. The reasons for this are two-fold:

Because trait-based systems are by definition based on personality traits, they make it difficult for a manager to provide feedback that can cause positive change in employee performance. This is caused by the fact that personality dimensions are for the most part static, and while an employee can change a specific behavior they cannot change their personality. For example, a person who lacks integrity may stop lying to a manager because they have been caught, but they still have low integrity and are likely to lie again when the threat of being caught is gone.

Trait-based systems, because they are vague, are more easily influenced by office politics, causing them to be less reliable as a source of information on an employee's true performance. The vagueness of these instruments allows managers to fill them out based on who they want to/feel should get a raise, rather than basing scores on specific behaviors employees should/should not be engaging in. These systems are also more likely to leave a company open to discrimination claims because a manager can make biased decisions without having to back them up with specific behavioral information.

Criticism

Performance appraisals are an instrument for social control. They are annual discussions, avoided more often than held, in which one adult identifies for another adult three improvement areas to work on over the next twelve months. You can soften them all you want, call them development discussions, have them on a regular basis, have the subordinate identify the improvement areas instead of the boss, and discuss values. None of this changes the basic transaction... If the intent of the appraisal is learning, it is not going to happen when the context of the dialogue is evaluation and judgment.

PERFORMANCE A PPRAISAL SYSTEM IN OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

Performance Appraisal Report is an index of an Employee / Executive’s work performance over a given period of time. It is crucial for his /her career growth as it indicates the Strengths, Weaknesses (if any ), Training needs, nature of job being performed, problems faced in work situation.

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the performance appraisal system are:

To set Norms and Targets of Work Performance, as well as, to monitor the Work Progress of Employees.

To facilitate placement of Employees in accordance with their suitability for different types of Assignments.

To provide an Objective basis for determination of merit, efficiency and suitability for the purpose of promotion.

To identify areas requiring exposure for Training / Development.

EVALUATION:

The Performance Appraisal seeks to evaluate:

The Work Performance of an employee on the present job in relation to the expected levels of performance, both qualitative and quantitative.

The extent of development achieved by the employee during the period under review.

Evaluation of behavioral Attributes Attitudes and Abilities.

Evaluation of potentials for assuming higher responsibility.

COVERAGE:

The Performance Appraisal covers:

i) Performance of an employee during the period from 1st April to 31st March of every year.

ii) All regular employees of the company. There shall, however be five different formats for under-mentioned category of employees.

a. Class III and IVb. E-0.c. E-1to E-3d. E-4 to E-6 &e. E-7 and above (PESB Format)

The appraisal form commonly known as PAR/ACR will have to be filled in respect of all such employees who have served for a period of at least 4 months in the organization during the relevant year.

PROCEDURE:

PAR /ACR in respect of an employee is required to be assessed / written by levels indicated below:-

a. By the Reporting Officer under whom employee is working.b. By the Reviewing Officer

CLASS III / IV & E-O EMPLOYEES:

The reporting officer for writing PAR of an employee of class III / IV and E-O level category will be the executive under whose control the employee is working .The Reviewing Officer will be of one grade above the grade of Reporting Officer.

The PAR in respect of class III and IV employees duly Reviewed / Accepted is maintained at Region / Institutes / Headquarters Group – wise in concerned establishment section /PAR sections.

The PAR in respect of E-0 to E-6 level executives are being maintained in PAR Department at Headquarters of Corporate R & P Division. As regards, E-7 and above level, all such reports which are received from Regions / Institutes/ Headquarters are maintained at the Office of Chairman -cum - Managing Director.

The Reporting Officer will be the Officer to whom the executive reports for his day-to-day work. Review of the PAR will be done by the executives to whom the Reporting Officer is responsible for his functions. Accepting authority will be the executive higher than the Reviewing Officer at different stages depending upon the nature of the grades, as per Delegation of Power in PAR Rules.

The Performance Appraisal Reports of Executive of E-6 level i.e. Deputy General Manager and above will be submitted to concern Functional Director for final review and acceptance.

The Performance Appraisal Reports of Executives up to E-5 level i.e. CM and equivalent will be reviewed by the RD/ ED/ Nominee of the Director concerned.

The Performance Appraisal Reports of Executives up to E-4 level i.e. Manager and equivalent would be reviewed by the Functional Head /GM/ GGM not less than E-7

ACCEPTING AUTHORITY:

1. A very senior officer who is designated under the Rules to re-look at Performance of the Appraise, and review the observations of the first and second Appraisers. He would finally determine and evaluate the performance of the Appraise, In case of disparity between his assessment and that of the first and second Appraisers; he has to record the basis of his revised assessment. He is expected to record specifically his comments in cases of overall performance grading A+ or D, and low score for personality traits by either of the earlier two Appraisers.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORTS (PAR) OFFICER

The PAR activities are a part of personal function, but the PAR system is essentially based on support of various departments. This demands that senior officer not less than E4 of the personnel department is designated as PAR Officer, who will have responsibility to respond quickly to the enquiry. Each Regional Office / Institute will have a PAR Officer. PAR Officer will report directly to Head of P&A in Regional Offices, who has the overall responsibility of development of human resources. In respect of offices in ONGC HQ in Dehradun and Delhi corporate PAR Officer will function under General Manager (Corporate Recruitment and Promotion).

ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE REPORTING AUTHORITY

The overall performance classification in grades is to be determined by examining both (a) Performance (b) Personality of the Appraisee. The parameters of this task are listed in Part II of the PAR format in blocks, A, B, C, D, E and F.

In evaluating performance (block A) due consideration is to be given to the bench marks indicated there in and one numerical block only is to be ticked.

In respect of personality traits, in blocks B, C, D, E and F only one numerical block is to be ticked after considering the bench marks indicated there in.

The Reporting Authority must offer explanation for his assessment for the special features while ticking the numerical blocks (A to F)

The Grade Classifications with explanation are given in the following pages. The performance and the grade / marks assigned to an Appraise by the Reporting Officer (Ist Appraiser) may be shown to the Appraisee by the Reporting Officer at an informal meeting. To begin with, this system is adopted in respect of Executives of E-5 level and above. To be reviewed after two years

1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT BY ACCEPTING AUTHORITY

The accepting authority will minutely examine the observations made by the first appraiser and the Reviewing Authority, and also the self-appraisal of the appraisee,

and after taking due consideration of all the aspects, determine overall grade and also comment on the total performance.

There should be specific observation about any adverse comment which needs to be communicated to the appraisee. He could also mention personality traits on which appraisee need to be counseled / advised for further improvement. Of his performance and which is not being considered as an adverse entry.

ASSESSMENT SYSTEM:

The two PAR formats for executive belonging to Junior (E1 to E3) and Middle (E4 to E6), reflect both performance and managerial competency components. These have been assigned block numerical values, merely to help in arriving at the final assessment and grading of individuals. The numerical scored are notional only.The appraisers have to use their judgment in the context of the numerical scores, and the total job situation for deciding the grade of performance.

I. EXECUTIVE ON DEPUTATION

Whenever an ONGC Executive goes out on deputation to another Organization, or vice-versa, it should normally be insisted that the ONGC PAR Formats are used. In case the concerned outside organization does not comply with the directives, the Reporting Officer will record his views on ONGC format alongside the report received form the Organization where the ONGC executive has been deputed.

II. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL ON TENURE BASIS

A separate form to be designed for such Employees for continuance or otherwise for completion / extension of tenure.

THE GRADING SYSTEM:

The Block numerical values have been assigned to assist the Ist Appraiser in making an overall assessment. The overall total score for determining a grade is merely a guide and the final grade may be at variance with the total score. The second appraiser i.e. the Reviewing Authority and the Accepting Authority, have to take an overall view, both of the performance and the personality of the appraise, while determining the FINAL GRADING the Accepting Authority will arrive at the final grading by judiciously weighing the assessment of Reviewing Authority, who may belong to functional discipline of the Appraisee along with the detailed assessment of the Reporting Authority.

THE OVERALL RATING IN GRADES IN RESPECT OF APPRAISALS WOULD BE AS UNDER

´A´+ score (95 and above)´A’ score (85 and above but less than 95)´A-´score (75 and above but less than 85)´B´+ score (65 and above but less than 75)´B´ score (55 and above less than 65)´C´ score (45 and above less than 55)´D´ score (less than 45)

The final grade given by the Accepting Authority after detailed and due consideration to the rating by the 1st and 2nd Appraisers, will be the DECISIVE GRADE of the Appraisee executive. In case this final rating is different from those of the 1st and 2nd

appraiser, adequate justification must be mentioned by the Accepting Authority. There must be adequate explanation by the 1st and 2nd appraisers and the Accepting Authority for any grade assigned to the appraisee. In the absence of adequate explanation the report will be considered incomplete and returned back to the appraisers for conforming to the directives contained in the instructions

THE GRADES :

The performance categories are defined as follows

EXCEPTIONAL (A+)

This is a person whose job performance and personality attributes are clearly remarkable. This person meets or exceeds Company’s highest standards and achieves extraordinary results in extraordinary circumstances. A rare individual who achieves this once in a while.

TOP PERFORMER (A):

This is someone whose job performance is noteworthy and he makes valuable contribution the organization. He does not have any negative personality attributes. He is not of the top performers.

VERY GOOD (B)

This is an individual whose performance consistently meets company’s expectations. This is a person who is unquestionably above average.

ADEQUATE (C)

This is a person whose overall performance meets basic requirements of the job and basic targets.

IN-ADEQUATE (D)

This is an individual who needs to improve his or her performance and has not achieved results in spite of guidance and counseling by appraisers. This aspect must

be specially stated in the comments / remarks column of the PAR format by the appraisers.

PEN PICTURE

In addition to assigning the grade, the Appraisers must depicts in precise language the dimensions of appraisee total performance, which justifies the grade and mentions his personal attributes.

MODERATION

This means re-evaluation of the PAR of an Appraisee and the grade awarded by the Accepting Authority to correct any aberrations.

i. REGIONAL OFFICE

The Head of the Personnel Department at the Region i.e. GM.(HR) will review the PARs of the Executives up to E-3 level and advise the Regional Director for moderation if required on the basis of analysis of reports. The Regional

Director in consultation with the functional head (which has to be recorded in the PAR) will have Authority to moderate PARs as under:-

ALL PAR’s which are graded A+ and D. Cases referred by General Manager (HR) of the Regions, on the basis of

monitoring.

ii. INSTITUTES

The Institutional heads will moderate PARs of executives up to E-3 level in the same manner as Regional Director.

iii ONGC HEADQUARTERS, DEHRADUN

General Manager (HRG) will conduct an analysis of the PAR Report for all E-4 to E-6 level executives including Regions and Institutions and Approaches. Director (HR) for correcting aberration. Director (HR) on the basis of detailed analysis, may moderate the final grade of individual PARs in consultation with Head of the functional group which has to be duly recorded.

iv EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD:- The Executive Committee if the Board of Director may moderate the final grade awarded to an executive belonging to E7 to E9.

GUIDELINE FOR MODERATION

A. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY:

It is considered difficult to design a moderation system through an empowered Committee for final grade assigned to an Appraisee Executive by the Accepting Authority because of a large variety of specialized cadres. In view of this Designated Authority has been determined, instead of a Committee which will be required to seek advice / guidance from Head of Professional Groups for each case, to be duly recorded, in the PAR format itself.

The Designated Authorities would be:

Asset Manager / Basin Manager / Sub Asset Manager – For Executives’ up to E-3 level working in the institutes.

Heads of Institutes –For Executives up to E –3 level working in the institutes.

Head Corporate R&P - For Executives in ONGC Headquarters, Dehradun and Delhi offices (up to E-3 level).

Director (HR) – For E-4 to E-6 level executives in Projects, Regional Offices, Institutes ONGC Headquarters and Delhi offices

Chairman & Managing Director, ONGC –for E7 and above Executives.

B. NORMS

The Designated Authority for moderation has special responsibility to ensure that by and large, the final grading of PARs of Executives (E4 to E6) of various disciplines conform to the broad pattern indicated below:-

Percentage of the total number of executives in the Business Group to be placedin different grades (E4 to E6 only) is indicated below:-

´A´+ score (95 and above)

´A´ score (85 and above but less that 95)

´A-´score (75 and above but less than 85)

´B+ ´score (65 and above but less than 75)

´B´ score (55 and above but less than 65)

´C ´score (45 and above but less than 55)

´D´ score (less than 45)

The above percentage norms will be achieved over a period of three years i.e. there would be gradual reduction each year for executives graded A+ (Particularly those in grades E4 and above, which at present is very high).The Moderation authority will be assisted by the PAR monitoring system in data analysis in achieving the above

percentage distribution of PARs for a Particular year. During the initial years, say up to 1998, the moderation exercise may not conform to above percentages, for each Business Group, but it would be desirable to achieve overall norms for the total strength.

.

C. ONGC HEAD QUARTERS DEHAR DUN (E-4 –E-6- LEVEL):

Moderation exercise would be undertaken after detailed analysis of PAR in respect of Appraisee awarded A +, A and D grades. The basis of analysis would be determined by Director (HR), on the basis of suggestion of Head Corporate R&P.

Instead of formal meeting of members of moderation Committee, the views of concerned functional Director relevant to the appraisee will be secured, and final grading after moderation will be recorded on PAR sheet by Head Corporate R&P as authorized official on behalf of Director (HR).

The revised Moderation Procedure will be implementing for all Executives (E-1 to E-4) at Assets, Basins, Head Quarter Dehradun and Institution form the year 1998-99.

As far as moderation of ´A´ PAR’s is concerned this may be enforced by the various Accepting Authorities as per laid down norms at present. This can be taken u only when the system is fully computerized.

D.THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR MODERATION

Head Corporate R&P would list out all A + and D cases only discipline wise and scale – wise and submit original PARs, when at least 80% PARs of that particular disciplines /Scale have been received by him, to the Concerned Functional Director indicating major observations and norms for moderation. Concerned Director will consider all dimensions of Appraisee’s potential, personality and performance and then rank them (highest-lowest) in respect of all the appraisees of the group graded A+. The reasons may also be recorded in case of down grading and PARs sent back to PAR section at Head Quarters for record.

E. DOCUMENTATION OF MODERATION:

Asset Manager /Basin Manager/ Sub Asset Manager / Institutional Head / Director (HR) would determine whether he would himself exercise authority to make entries or assign this task to a Designated Authority through an office memorandum.

COUNSELING SYSTEM:

It is proposed to adopt Counseling System for Executives up to the level of E-5 at Regional Offices, Institutes Headquarters at Dehradun and Delhi.

The counseling procedure will be as under:-

THE GROUP OF COUNSELORS WILL COMPRISE:-

Asset Manager / Basin Manager / Sub Asset Manager / Head of the institution or his representative not below the rank of E-7.

Head of the Personnel Division.

An outside Management expert selected by Director (HR).

COUNSELING GROUP FOR EXECUTIVES FOR LEVEL E6 AND ABOVE:

Director (HR) will be the Chairman of this Group for executives of E-6 level and above and will co-opt one of the concern Function Director and an outside Management Expert as member. It will operate in the same manner as suggested above for Regional Offices.The Counseling Group for executives belonging to E-7 and above grades will be constituted by Chairman and Managing Director and (who will be also be the Chairman of the group) and it will function in the manner suggested above. Director (HR) and an outside Management expert will be members.The Counseling Group will not review the final grading of the appraisee, assigned to him by Accepting/ Moderation Authority.

BUSINESS OF THE COUNSELING GROUP:

i. The Groups will consider the following cases:

An executive who has been finally graded ‘Adequate’ during the last two year in successions.

An executive who has been finally graded ‘Inadequate’ during the year.

An executive for whom Counseling has been suggested by the Accepting Authority, and may not belong to categories (a) and (b) above.

ii. The Counselors during the interview of the executives belonging to (a) and (b) categories will ascertain the reasons (especially situational), system constraints and the behavioral dimensions of the executives.

iii. In case of category (c) executives, efforts will be made to develop awareness for correcting personality traits.

iv. The Counseling Group will send a report on each case to Director (HR) for information.

Introduction of e-PAR in ONGC

With a view to establish a transparent, objective and multidimensional Performance evaluation system and to introduce performance contracting process in alignment with industry best practices, a need was felt to implement Online Performance Appraisal System in ONGC. EC in its 321st Meeting held on 23.04.08 at Delhi approved the introduction of the new online PAR system (e-PAR), w.e.f. the appraisal year 2008-2009.

We are pleased to announce that the system will go live from 4 th June 2008, and will be accessible to concerned executives from that date.

Following are the salient features of the e-PAR system:

1. As in the existing system, the new PAR system also has two components, i.e., the Performance Appraisal component and Potential Appraisal component. The total marks for both remain the same as before, i.e., 100 for Performance and 50 for Potential, and so also the mechanism for arriving at the overall weighted score, for different levels. However in e- PAR system, in addition to making the process fully online, certain structural changes in assessment of performance have been incorporated.

2. Performance assessment has been made more objective through Key Result Areas (KRAs) with Key performance Indicators (KPIs) as applicable specific to any position / assignment, which are to be defined jointly by appraisee and appraiser, at the beginning of the year.

The evaluation methodology envisaged in the e-PAR system for Performance and Potential shall be as follows: -

a) Performance Appraisal:

The Performance Appraisal has divided in 4 KRAs i.e.

(1) Quantitative & Timeliness,

(2) System Improvement

(3) HSE / Office Management and,

(4) Qualitative Aspects. The first KRA can have a minimum of 1 KPI and a maximum of 5 KPIs and their relative weight age within the allotted marks need to be jointly set at the beginning of the Assessment Period, with a facility for Mid-term Review to accommodate situations where modification might be required. The other KRAs are envisaged for assessment by the appraiser only.

b) Potential Appraisal:

The potential assessment component has been retained largely the same with minor enhancement by inclusion of “Punctuality” as a part of one of the attributes.

Annexure- 1(a) and 1(b) give detailed illustration of the above assessment mechanism for Performance & Potential respectively.

C) Another change is the incorporation of a facility to record receipt of any meritorious award, during the assessment period.

3. In the initial phase, the PAR of E1 – E6 levels shall be e-enabled w.e.f assessment year 2008-09 to be followed by the remaining categories in subsequent phases.

4. The system has been configured on SAP Platform and employee will have access through SAMPARC (ESS Portal).

5. A flow-chart indicating the total online process, together with time schedules for different sub activities for the present year is as follows:

Inputs from heads/COs L-III

f ID.

Time schedule for e-PAR Process (2008-09)

31st May

Transfer / backing cases

PAR officersGeneration of e-PAR.

Appraisee/appraisers join setting of KRAs

3rd June

4th –16th Jun

Appraisee/ Appraiser Mid

1st –31st Oct Oct

Extend date for

15th Jul-15th Aug

Appraisee /Appraiser Final assessment

1st –30th April

Reviewing officer

Co –Review of L-Ill under functional Control of Corp. Chiefs

Moderation

15th May

30th June

E6 LIll / LII

In case of

Difference

End

6. In addition to setting KRAs/KPIs, another very important step is capturing the reporting chain for every individual employee. These data would be uploaded by respective PAR Officers, in consultation with Controlling Officers / Key Executives. The requirement of joint Appraisal/ Review/ Acceptance as per administrative directives has also been mapped in the process.

KRA Description Weight age

Appraiser Reviewing

officer

KRA – 1: Quantitative & Timeliness(Quantitative – (e- g. output in terms in production / work over jobs / meter age / equipment availability / oil gain / LKMs interpretation volume / %age completion of project / achievement of MOU parameters/ marks in case of trainees / UPS/ SUPS scheme etc. )

AND

Timeliness- (e.g. response time / turnaround time / adherence to schedules / time optimization etc.)

KPI-1

a) Quantitative

b) Timeliness

KPI-2

a) Quantitative

b) Timeliness

KPI-3

a) Quantitative

b) Timeliness

a) Quantitative

Acceptance 31st July

Acceptance Admin

Acceptance Mentoring Director

Acceptance Mentor

CMD

Note: No. of KPIs may depend on assignments & level of executive (maximum 5 and minimum

Weight ages against each KPI may also vary as per importance of KPI in each case. The total allocation against quantitative and timeliness may be a proportioned against the chosen KPIs.

KPI-4

b) Timeliness

KPI-5

a) Quantitative

b) Timeliness

Total

KPIs

a) Quantitative

40

b) Timeliness

20

KRA-2: System Improvement(e.g. efficient work procedures / adoption off technology / technology / optimizing processes / cost op

10

KRA-3HSE (for field duty)/(e.g. safe work practices / environment protection / adherence to safety guideline/ availability of safety equipment / compliance of statutory requirements etc. and achievements / innovations in these areas.

Office management (for office duty)

(e.g. adherence to correct systems and procedures / maintenance of records / it systems usage/ optimizing processes/ proactive peer support / workplace upkeep etc.)

10

KRA-4: Qualitative-(e.g. depth of analysis research done/ reliability of end product / service / end user feedback etc.)

Overall quality of performance of all KRAs as per criteria given in next column:

Attribute Range

Excellent 17-20

Very good 13-16

20

Good 9-12

Average 5-8

Below Avg. 0-4

GRAND TOTAL (Performance –p) 100

6. A extract of the presentation on the online PAR process – e-PAR, as made to EC is being uploaded in the OR, net, which may be referred for further clarity on the process.

7. Initial training of all PAR Officers familiarizing them on the new process, and its mapping on the ICE system has been imparted during March 10 and May 23-24, 2008.

8. A joint team of HRD and ICE would be visiting different work centers for familiarization workshops and hand holding. Location PAR officers and I/Cs HR- ER would facilitate these activities.

The implementation of the online PAR system is a major innovation in HR that will have strategic bearings in many HR processes in future. To ensure smooth and systematic implementation of this HR initiative, proactive support and co-operation of all concerned are earnestly solicited.

Performance Appraisal

Annexure-1

Potential Appraisal

III.B. Potential Appraisal

Scale for potential appraisal is from 1to 5 (1-poor, 2-Fair, 3-Good, 4- very Good, 5-Excellent) keeping the exiting role as well as future Positions in perspective

Attribute / Trait Rating

Appraiser Reviewing

officer

1. Result oriented approach: Focuses on given targets to achieve them. Willingness and ability to come up with ideas and alternatives for solving job related problems.

2. Willingness to accept challenges: Willing and able to handle challenges based on understanding of upcoming changes

3. Diligence and reliability: Reliability to perform and complete assigned tasks well within schedules of time, cost and quality. Dependability.

4. Initiative: Willingness and ability to start and complete tasks independently, self-starter.

5. Professional competence: Awareness and understanding of the fundamentals and developments relating to one’s own job and demonstrating high level of performance.

6. Communication Skill: Ability in verbal and written communication, clarity of thought and expression.

7. Commitment and dedication: Towards organizational (departmental and corporate) goals.

8. Personal conduct, discipline and punctuality: Behavioral pattern repeatedly demonstrated, shows regard to Rules of the Corporation.

9. Leadership : Demonstrates ability to lead to accomplish the given task and also inspire others to do it, Mentor.

10. Inter-personal relationship/ team member: Willingness and ability to work harmoniously within the team , extends cooperation and is respected and trusted

TOTAL (Q)

QUESTIONNAIRE ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM IN ONGC

I am Ekta Gupta, a student of “DIT School of Business”, Greater Noida. This Questionnaire has been designed as a part of my project work on “Performance Appraisal System in ONGC”. The response provided shall be completely anonymous and confidential..

PURPOSE:

The information gathered through this Questionnaire will be used as a part of the empirical research into Performance Appraisal System in ONGC.

LEVEL: __________

DISCIPLINE: __________

LENGTH OF SERVICE: _________

PLEASE GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONNAIRE GIVEN BELOW & TICK ( ) AGAINST THE OPTION YOU FIND MOST APPROPRIATE.

SL.NO QUESTIONS STRONGLY AGREE

AGREE

NO IDEA

DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE

1. Awareness about the Performance Appraisal procedure is properly spread in the organization

2. Objectives of Performance Appraisal System in ONGC are very well known to all Employees.

3. The procedure of Performance Appraisal in ONGC is accepted well by the employees

4. Well-designed work targets are set by the Employees in consultation with their Head at the beginning of each assessment year.

5. Employees get proper feedback of their Strength / Weakness through Performance Appraisal.

6. Employees are well informed about Performance Grading / Ranking.

7. New employees get proper

guidelines for their career development plans.

8. Counseling is provided in Performance Appraisal System.

9. Suggestions on Self-Identified Training needs in PAR are given due consideration.

10. Timely change in the Performance Assessment Report is a necessity.

11. Self-appraisal opportunities are given to employees in Performance Appraisal System.

12. Evaluation of Performance carried out at three levels i.e. Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authority is favorable for Employees.

13. Employees are very much aware of their Competent Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authority of PAR.

14. Poor performances of Employees can be improved through proper plans.

15. Performance Appraisal System of ONGC helps to measure the Personal traits, Behavioral attributes and Potential of the Employees.

16. Performance level of the Employees can be improved by the Performance Appraisal in ONGC.

17. 360 degree Performance Appraisal System is considered most appropriate for Employees.

18. The Strengths, Weaknesses and Potential of an employ can be evaluated by the Annual Performance Appraisal.

19. The Performance Appraisal System presently used in ONGC is effective and needs no change.

20. Fairness of Performance Appraisal System cannot be challenged.

21. The PAR Judgment is affected by the Personal Relations of the Employee with his /her Competent Reporting, Reviewing or Accepting Authority.

22. Employees are aware of the introduction of new online PAR System (e-PAR) w.e.f. the Appraisal Year 2008-09.

23. The major step towards establishing transparency in Evaluation System is Implementation of online PAR.

24. Many HR Processes like Promotions, Employee Development etc. have been very effective with online PAR system.

25. The online PAR System has provided an easy way for filling Performance Assessment Report.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

DIGRAMMATICAL REPRESENTATION OF DATA:

ASSESSMENT OF FINDINGS

Q1. Awareness about the Performance Appraisal is properly spread in the organization.

5%

72%

9% 5% 9% Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Analysis - Majority of the employees (70%) are aware of the prevailing Performance Appraisal System in ONGC.

Q2. Objectives of Performance Appraisal system in ONGC are very well known to all employees.

10%

68%9%

13% Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Although Majority of employee are aware of the objective of System in ONGC. Still about (13%) of employees need awareness about the PAR System on ONGC.

Q3. The Procedure of Performance Appraisal system in ONGC is accepted well by the employees.

16%

59%

18%

12%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Large numbers of employees are satisfied with the procedure of Performance Appraisal followed in ONGC.

Q4. Well-designed work targets are set by the employees in consultation with their head at beginning of each assessment year.

19%

31%

4%

41%

5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Majority of (41%) employees disagree that the well-designed targets are set / provided to them in consultation with their concerned Head at the beginning of assessment year

Q5. Employees get proper feedback of their strength/weakness through Performance Appraisal.

10%

35%18%

32% 5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. The majority of employees feel that they get proper feedback of their Strength/ Weakness through Performance Appraisal. Still about 32% of the employees disagree with this.

Q6. Employees are well informed about Performance Grading/Ranking.

6%10%

12%

36%

36%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Majority of employee feels that Performance Grading /Ranking is not communicated to all employees. About 10% agree with this statement and 12% of employees do not have idea about this.

Q7. New employees get proper guidelines for their career development plans.

13%

59%

8%11% 9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. A Large number of employees i.e. about 59% of employee feel that their senior provides guidance in career development plans, but about 11 disagree with the statement.

Q8. Counselling is provided in Performance Appraisal system.

6%34%

25%

30%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. 40% of the employees agrees that counseling to an extent is provided in (PAR) system. About 25% of employees have no idea, whereas 35% of the employees disagree with the statement.

Q9. Suggestions on Self-Identified Training needs in PAR are given due Consideration.

8%

48%

25%

19% 1%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. More than 47% employees feels that self-identified training given by them in PAR Form are given due consideration. However, about 19% of employees disagree with this statement, whereas 25% employees have no idea about it.

Q10. Timely change in the Performance Assessment Report is a necessity.

11%

51%7%

26%

5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Large numbers of employee (51%) are agreeing that moderation is a necessity however considerable number of employees (26%) disagree with this fact.

Q11. Self-Appraisal opportunities are given to Employees in Performance Appraisal System.

35%

51%

9% 3%2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Majority of the employees agrees that they receive opportunity of self-appraisal in PAR system.

Q12. Evaluation of Performance carried out at three levels i.e. Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authority is favorable for Employees.

28%

66%

2%

1%3%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Maximum employees (66%)are aware that evaluation of performance is carried out at three levels i.e. Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authority.

Q13. Employees are very much aware of their Competent Reporting, Reviewing andAccepting Authority of PAR.

32%

63%

1% 4%Strongly Agree Agree

No Idea Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Majority of employees (95%) are very much aware of their Competent Reporting, Reviewing & Accepting of PAR, only 5% of the employees need to be more aware

Q14. Poor performance of employees can be improved through proper plans.

20%

63%

7%6%4%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Maximum of employee (83%) agrees that in ONGC action plans exists for improvement of poor Performing Employees.

Q15. Performance Appraisal System of ONGC helps to measure the Personal traits, Behavioral attributes and Potential of the Employees.

2%43%

22%

19%

14% Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. About half of the employees i.e. 45% of employee feel that PAR system of ONGC helps to measure Personal traits, Behavioral attributes and Potential of the Employee. Almost an equal number of employees disagree with the statement.

Q16. Performance level of the Employees can be improved by the Performance Appraisal in ONGC.

75%

20%3%2%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Maximum of employee (75%) agree that Performance level of the Employees can be improved by the Performance Appraisal in ONGC.

Q17. 360 degree Performance Appraisal System is considered most appropriate for Employees.

25%

30%34%

11%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. A large of the employee (34%) does not have idea about the 360 degree Performance Appraisal System. About 55% of the employees know about 360 degree PAR System and agrees that it is the most appropriate system of appraisal.

Q18. The Strengths, Weakness and Potential of an employee can be evaluated.

11%

48%

17%

19%5%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. 59% of Employee feels that Annual Performance Appraisal helps Employee to realize his/her Strength/ Weakness & Potential. About 24% disagree with this and 17% of employees have no idea about it.

Q20. The Performance Appraisal System Presently used in ONGC is effective and needs no change.

10%

64%2%

6%18%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Majority of employees (64%) agree that present PAR System in ONGC is very much effective & it does not need any change. However, about 24% disagree with the statement and very few have no idea about it.

Q21. Fairness of Performance Appraisal System cannot be challenged.

4%

41%

23%

18%

14%Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Employees have diverse opinion about the fairness of Performance Appraisal System in ONGC. Though, about 45% of the employees agree that fairness of PAR System cannot be challenged, about 32% disagree with the statement and 23% have no idea about it.

Q22. The PAR judgment is affected by the Personal Relations of the Employee with his/her Competent Reporting, Reviewing or Accepting Authority.

10%

49%

22%

10%

9%Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. 59% of employees feels that Personal Relation s of the employee with his/her Competent Reporting, Reviewing or Accepting Authority affects the PAR judgment. About 19% disagree with the statement and 22% have no idea about it.

Q23. Employees are aware of the introduction of new online PAR System (e-PAR) w.e.f. the Appraisal Year 2008-2009.

25%

56%

10%9%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Majority of Employees (81%) is aware of the introduction of new online PAR System (e-PAR) w.e.f. the Appraisal Year 2008-2009. About 9% disagree with the statement and 10% have no idea about it.

Q23. The major step towards establishing transparency in Evaluation System is Implementation of online PAR.

31%

37%

22%10%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. More than 65% employee feels that implementation of online PAR System is a major step towards establishing transparency in Evaluation System. About 9% disagree with the statement and 23% have no idea about it.

Q24. Many HR Processes like Promotions, Employee Development etc. have been very effective with Online PAR System.

35%

56%

1% 8%

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. Majority of employee (91%) feels that Online PAR System will bring efficiency in many HR processes like Promotion, Employee Development etc. About 8% disagree with the statement.

Q25. The online PAR System has provided an easy way for filling Performance Assessment Report.

20%

18%

18%32%

11%Strongly Agree

Agree

No Idea

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Ans. 44% of the employees feel that most of the employees are not capable of filling Performance Assessment Report through newly introduced Online PAR System. Only 18% agree with the statement and 18% have no idea about it.

RECOMMENDATION

In my view following recommendation may be considered while designing the performance appraisal system.

The current appraisal system is subjective and is not contributing to achieve desired results. Hence it is suggested that the appraisal system should be more objective and there is a need to develop a well-designed instrument for performance and potential appraisal.

Though the present performance appraisal system in envisages that there will be interaction between appraiser and appraises. Emphasis is not been given to this in practice. It is essential to give feedback to the appraisees about the performance strengths and weakness and scope for improvement if any.

Performance appraisal system should be viewed as an instrument for development.

Proper instruction should be given by the PAR section to the reporting and the accepting officer.

The past parameters of PAR should be modified and communicated to all concerned. This will further facilitate the reporting officer to judge their performance.

Job parameters of the executives for the assessment year should be fixed the beginning of the year.

They favored feedback to be given at the end of appraisal exercise so that he/she can overcome their weakness and can perform their duties in the more responsible manner.

The question regarding the parameters set in the PAR form satisfy most of the employees but there are some executives who were not satisfies with the parameters set in the PAR form and they suggested that parameters should be set according to the role and assignment.

Most of the employees are satisfies with effectiveness of PAR form. They believe that PAR form of ONGC helps them to overcome weakness and enhance their potential.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

For the project report of performance appraisal in ONGC, I have consulted the following books and websites.

BOOKS

HUMAN RESOURCE MANUAL

“HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT” – L.M. Prasad

“HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT”- P. Subba Rao

INTERNET REFERENCES

www.google.co.in

www.ongcreports.net

www.ongcindia.com