Week 6 - Assignment: Prepare Job Descriptions and Calls for Applicants and Week 7 - Assignment: Appraise Strategies to Assist in Effective Job Evaluations
Fila64
AnalyzingtheperformanceappraisalsystemofapublicsectororganizationinIndia.pdf
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201648
Introduction Performance appraisal is the process of obtaining, analyzing and recording information about the relative worth of an employee (Chouhan et al., 2013; and
Verma and Chouhan, 2014). It is the systematic evaluation of the individual with
© 2016 IUP. All Rights Reserved.
Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
Vineet Chouhan1, Bibhas Chandra2, Shubham Goswami3
and Pushpa Verma4
1 Assistant Professor, School of Management, Sir Padampat Singhania University, Bhatewar, Udaipur 313601, Rajasthan, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India. E-mail: [email protected]
3 Assistant Professor, School of Management, Sir Padampat Singhania University, Bhatewar, Udaipur 313601, Rajasthan, India. E-mail: [email protected]
4 Lecturer, Department of Commerce, B.N.P.G. Girls College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. E-mail: [email protected]
Performance appraisal is considered as a management tool which is often used
for motivating and effective utilization of human resources. This tool is used for
determining compensation, incentives, promotion, tenure, transfers, layoffs and
development of potential employees in an organization. The basic objective of
this study is to analyze the need for replacement of traditional Performance
Appraisal System (PAS) in public sector enterprises by using a case study
approach selecting a public sector company, the Rajasthan State Mines and
Minerals Limited. The study highlights that employees perceive the PAS measures
to be objective, accurate and unbiased, and the PAS system to be transparent,
performance-based and linked to employee growth opportunities. Also, significant
differences have been found in the perception of workers and managers on the
given constructs of modified PAS.
49Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
respect to his or her performance on the job and his or her potential for development
(Jacobs et al., 1980). Performance appraisal is a structured system of measuring
and evaluating employee’s job-related behaviors and outcomes to discover how
and why the employee is presently performing on the job and how the employee
can perform more effectively in the future so that the employee, organization, and
society are benefitted (Flippo, 1984). Jacobs et al. (1980) explained performance
appraisal as a systematic attempt to distinguish the more efficient workers from
the less efficient ones and to discriminate among the strengths and weaknesses
an individual has across many job elements. These measurements are normally
done by the direct supervisor of the workers and can serve different organizational
purposes (Baron and Armstrong, 1998). Performance Appraisal System (PAS) is
used as a measure for increasing the effectiveness of organizations by improving
the performance of the employees and developing the capabilities of teams and
individual contributors (Baron and Armstrong, 1998). It also includes all formal
procedures used to evaluate personalities, their contribution and potential of group
members in a working organization. It can also be seen as a continuous process
to secure the information necessary for making correct and objective decisions on
employees (Yoder, 1967).
Performance appraisal is a two-way communication process which involves active
communication between employees and supervisors about performance (Cleveland
et al., 2003). The performance of the employees is evaluated by their supervisors,
peers or outside sources like customers and employees themselves. A crucial
element of a performance management system is monitoring the area where
change is required and which will in turn produce the desired behavior that will
produce improved performance (Lemieux-Charles et al., 2003; and Fryer et al., 2009).
It is a powerful tool to calibrate, refine and reward the performance of the employee
(Briscoe and Claus, 2008). Appraisal may be measured against factors like job
knowledge, quality of output, initiative, leadership abilities, supervision
dependability, cooperation, judgment, versatility, and health. The purpose of the
performance management system is to ensure that the work performed by
employees is in accordance with the established objectives of the organization.
Employees should have a clear understanding of the quality and quantity of work
expected from them and should also receive information about how effectively
they are performing against the expected standard.
Continuous appraisal and evaluation of employee is required to improve
organizational performance and increase efficiency and effectiveness. The ability
of organizations to install an effective performance appraisal strategy helps them
achieve competitive advantage which is required most in the current competitive
era. Appraisal processes are not systematic and regular and often characterized
by personal influences caused by organizations’ preoccupation with using
confidential appraisal system which delays objectivity and fairness. Usually,
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201650
organizations ignore management by objectives, critical incidents to personal
prejudices. This is retrogressive as it affects the overall performance of the individual.
A more advanced appraisal method, whereby superiors appraise their subordinates
and subordinates appraise their superior and the average of the entire appraisal
is taken to reach at the final outcome, is to be considered. Post-appraisal counseling,
whereby the appraisal consequences are scrutinized to explain the strengths and
weaknesses for better future performance, should also be taken up. Administrations
should provide more attention to the assessment of their employees and recognize
that organizational training needs can only be identified from the result of
performance appraisal. Many private companies in India are following a well-
structured performance appraisal and performance-linked reward system. The
public sector firms also need to ensure that qualified human resources get incentives
to work in occupations. But due to the use of traditional measures of evaluating
the performance, high performing humans are shifting towards private sector.
Evaluating every individual’s talent and achievement with sensible consistency
and accuracy is the need of the hour. Thus, the present research examines the
traditional PAS and the possibility of replacing the traditional system from an
employee perspective.
Literature Review Performance evaluation of government activities is essential in any democracy
(Jackson, 2009). Governments at all the levels (central/federal, state or local) should
be accountable and responsible to the electorate and a host of other stakeholders
(Jackson, 1993). Its accountability is not considered in financial term but also in
social and human terms (Curtis et al., 2005). PAS can be used as a measure to
evaluate individual’s performance (Morgan, 2000) and must be related to rewards
(Briscoe and Claus, 2008).
PAS in public sector organization analyzes the individual components and
measure perception as to how well the individual components of the PAS are working
(Robert, 1995). Public sector’s performance appraisal is a significant aspect of making
employees more productive and is the ‘tool of choice’ in such performance-enhancing
efforts (Clinton and Nykodyan, 1996). Appraisal of employee effectiveness is one
of the most important managerial tasks carried out in organizations (Gundrsen,
1993). It is a key tool for meeting the managerial needs of the modern organization
(Daley, 1992). Performance appraisal in public sector organizations can serve three
purposes, viz., a control device, pricing mechanism, and a mechanism for
development of human resources. It has enumerated different dimensions of
performance appraisal, viz., periodicity of assessment, degree of secrecy,
parameters assessed, and studies consequences of the choice along the maintained
dimensions (Manikutty, 1990).
51Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
Gerald and Douglas (2001) examined the relationship between employee
perceptions of performance appraisal and both employee burnout and experienced
job satisfaction in public sector in India. It helps employees to raise their overall
level of work performance and it is one of the most commonly used management
tools in the Indian industries (Ferdowsian and Charles, 2002). But the PAS practices
are often subjected to the rater’s accuracy and use of unbiased approach (Hogan,
1987; and Mount and Thompson, 1987). The other studies in the public sectors
were conducted globally for identification of factors by Carneiro (1985), Rothstein
(1990), Dalton (1996), Barry (1997), Longenecker (1999), Armstrong (2001), Hall
(2002), Rudner (2002), Roberts (2003), Salgado (2007), Condrey (2012), and at
the Indian level by Chouhan et al. (2013). Amba-Rao et al. (2000) made a
comparative study of PAS among foreign and domestic firms in India. They
presented a culture-based analysis indicating homogeneity in Indian management
practices. Pattnaik and Pattanaik (2011) emphasized the importance of PAS in
Indian big, medium and small public sector banks. They confirmed that through
proper implementation of performance management system, quality workforce can
be retained. Public sector enterprises like banks are mainly performance-oriented
through rewarding best performers, applying process and systems approach and
providing opportunity for continuous improvement. A case study on BHEL
performance management system by Yadav and Dabhade (2013) figured out the
key variables that are having a strong influence on performance management
system with special reference to BHEL, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, and concluded
that extensive changes in the global economy have made it imperative for the
public sector to improve the quality of their governance structures. Thus, evidences
from literature emphasize on requirement of new PAS based upon job-relevant
inputs.
The Framework
For the purpose of this paper, reviews of PAS are considered in terms of validity of
performance appraisal tool (Kleiman and Richard, 1981; Villanova et al., 1993; Tziner
et al., 1996; Hall et al., 1998; Welbourne et al., 1998; and Woehr and Winfred,
2003), judgment accuracy in PAS (Heneman et al., 1987; Gosselin et al., 1997;
Sulsky and Balzer, 1998; Tziner and Kevin, 1999; Erdogan et al., 2001; Facteau and
Craig, 2001; Levy and Williams, 2004; Curtis et al., 2005; Taggar and Travor, 2006;
Brown et al., 2010; Schleicher et al., 2010; and Chouhan et al., 2013), use of correct
procedure (Banner and Cooke, 1984; Longenecker et al., 1988; Harris, 1994; Davis
and Landa, 1999; Swiercz et al., 1999; Herman and David, 2000; Kennerley, 2002;
and Shao et al., 2011), goal selection (Tziner and Kopelman, 1992; Roberts, 2003;
Briscoe and Claus, 2008; Dessler, 2008; Armstrong, 2009; and Kandula, 2011),
feedback and satisfaction (llgen et al., 1979; Dorfman et al., 1986; Giles and
Mossholder, 1990; Murphy and Cleveland, 1995; Taylor, 1996; Keeping and Levy,
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201652
2000; Facteau and Craig, 2001; Levy and Williams, 2004; and Jawahar, 2006),
performance-based pay system (McGregor, 1957; Napier and Latham, 1986; Wyatt,
1989; Giles and Mossholder, 1990; Kanfer, 1990; De Silva, 1998; Swierez et al.,
1999; Banker et al., 2001; and Smith and Rupp, 2004), participation of workers/
employees (French et al., 1966; Silverman and Kenneth, 1984; Baldwin et al., 1991;
Nathan et al., 1991; Fletcher, 1995; Roberts and Tammy, 1996; Cawley et al., 1998;
and Roberts, 2003), ‘360-degree’ appraisal (Rothstein, 1990; Church and Bracken,
1997; Funderburg et al., 1997; Garavan et al., 1997; Beverly, 1998; Waldman et al.,
1998; Wise, 1998; DeNisi and Kluger, 2000; Brett and Atwater, 2001; Peiperl, 2001;
Bruce, 2002; Beatrice et al., 2004; Armstrong, 2006; and Craig et al., 2006), ability
of PAS is significant in related issues like, income, job security, working hours, etc.
(Mayer and Davis, 1999; Fajana, 2002; Gibson et al., 2007; and Manoharan et al.,
2009), and skill check of employees (Rao, 1986; Cutler, 1992; Fletcher and Williams,
1992; Koike, 1994; Stasz, 2001; Shibata, 2002; Bratton and Gold, 2003; Green
and James, 2003; and Varma et al., 2005).
Objectives The broad objective of the study is to explore the factors and assess their relative
explanatory power potentially influencing employee’s perception of the performance
appraisal system of select organizations. Specifically, the objectives are to:
• Identify the factors influencing the employee’s perception of the
performance appraisal system at different levels.
• Analyze the explanatory power of the influencing factors on the
appropriateness of performance appraisal system.
• Examine the perceptual gap on factors with respect to performance
appraisal system at different levels in the organization.
On the basis of objectives, the following hypotheses were framed for testing:
H 1 : The factors influencing the employee’s perception on performance appraisal
system have significant explanatory power.
H 2 : The perception of employee’s on performance appraisal system is considerably
influenced by change in the management levels.
Data and Methodology The research methodology is related with identification of factors relevant to performance appraisal of employees. The current study covers all workers and managers of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited (RSMML) which include a total of 2,095 personnel including 1,831 employees and 264 managers and supervisors at corporate office of the company in the year 2011. RSMML is one of
53Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
the premier public sector enterprises of the Government of Rajasthan, primarily engaged in mining and marketing of industrial minerals in the state. The sheer magnitude of operations and the need to rapidly develop the mines compelled the Government of Rajasthan to take over the company in 1973. RSMML has Strategic Business Unit and Profit Center – Rock phosphate at Udaipur, Gypsum at Bikaner, Limestone at Jodhpur, and Lignite at Jaipur. It has a research and development cell which plays a dominant role in the business, and the research work is carried out in its own laboratories and workshops.
PAS exists in RSMML for both executives and workmen. Every workman is appointed, confirmed, promoted and demoted on the basis of performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is the same for workmen and executives. In addition to this, every executive is required to fill up a self-appraisal report which is forwarded to the managing director at corporate office. At the time of promotion, the performance appraisal of 5-7 years is considered. For this purpose, grades are
given to employees which are enlisted in Table 1.
Table 1: Grades of PAS in RSMM
Grade Meaning
Excellent Denotes excellent job performance in all respects.
Good Well above average.
Average Just meets the basic requirement.
Unsatisfactory Performance much below the requirement.
Appraisal System in RSMM In case of executives, the performance appraisal report is filled by the concerned executive which is submitted to the next superior called ‘reporting officer’ and after his comments, it is submitted to the unit head, the ‘reviewing officer’. After his final comments, it is sent to the managing director at corporate office. In case of workmen, personnel department sends appraisal report to the head of the concerned workman who gives his comments, and then he sends the report to his immediate boss; the report is processed and after obtaining the approval of the competent authority (Chief Manager Mines or General Manager), the necessary action is taken.
It is expected of each employee to know his defects and corrective measures and every reporting officer should make an objective assessment and provide necessary guidance to correct deficiencies. This seems to be lacking in the case of RSMML as its turnover of labor is over 5% in four previous years out of five. Confidentiality in the existing PAS is the major weakness which demotivates not only staff performance, but also human resources development. Considering the latest modes, incorporating the latest techniques of appraisals is necessary. The changing needs of the organization and the existing lacunae in the PAS mandate
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201654
the RSMML to design an updated appraisal system to fulfill organizational as well
as individual needs.
Data Collection Due to the large size of the human base, convenient sampling method is used for collecting data. Primary data was collected through well-designed, structured and comprehensive questionnaire (see Appendix). The scale items were measured via Likert 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 200 respondents (including workers and managers/ supervisors), and 121 workers and managers had responded.
Method For the purpose of data analysis, SPSS-19 software was used. As per the objective, the perceptions of the workers and managers related to the various areas were analyzed with the broader hypothesis. To identify the key factors in the current PAS, multivariate regression analysis was used. At the first stage, the perception of the workers and managers were sought in relation to the parameter of the
validity of performance tool.
Results and Discussion To analyze H
1 that the factors influencing the employee’s perception on PAS have
significant explanatory power and to identify the significant attributes, multiple regression analysis was done and the results are presented in Table 2.
The attributes concerning performance appraisal of organization on validity of performance appraisal tools dimension were identified with multiple regression analysis. The results reveal that three factors, i.e., ‘the instrument of performance appraisal has accurate, clear standards and measures’, ‘I understand the measures used to evaluate my performance’, and ‘the most important parts of my job performance are reflected in my performance appraisal’, explain the validity of performance appraisal tools.
On the judgment accuracy of PAS dimension, the analysis shows that one factor, i.e., ‘the PA is well-designed and leads to better performance and work quality’, explains the judgment accuracy of PAS. On the use of correct procedure of PAS dimension, two factors, i.e., ‘the supervisor utilizes the evaluation system to assess my performance objectively and without bias’ and ‘standards used to evaluate performance is clear’, explain the use of correct procedure of the PAS. On goal selection dimension, five factors, viz., ‘the goals developed for my performance period are meaningful measures’, ‘the supervisor clearly expresses goals and assignments’, ‘performance goals set up for me are reasonable’, ‘goal-setting gives me a broader picture of the work unit and the organization’s objectives’ and ‘it is
clear that which course of action needs to be taken in order to accomplish
performance goals’ explain the validity of performance appraisal tools.
55Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
Table 2: Results of Multiple Regression Analysis of Variables – H 1
Validity of Performance Appraisal Tool
Accurate and clear measures 0.517
Understanding of measures –0.218 20.905* 0.332
Job performance reflected in PA tool 0.247
Judgment Accuracy
Well-designed PA 0.412 24.357* 0.163
Use of Correct Procedure
Evaluation system is objective and unbiased 0.379 25.522* 0.75805
Standards for evaluation are clear 0.288
Goal-Selection
Goals and assignments are clear 0.816
Goals are meaningful 0.330
Performance goals are reasonable –0.613 20.420* 0.447
Course of action is clear 0.163
Goal-setting describe organizations objectives –0.325
Feedback and Satisfaction
Information on performance feedback –0.331 8.720* 0.114 is sufficiently detailed
Satisfied with performance feedback 0.564
Performance-Based Pay System
Clear and reasonable process 0.412 24.278* 0.162
Participation of Workers/Employee
Willing to participate in PAS development 0.123 12.452* 0.160
Instrument should be developed 0.094 with help of employees
Whole or ‘360-Degree’ Appraisal
It would enhance my awareness 0.760 88.199* 0.592 on my performance
Prefer to be evaluated by colleagues –0.120
Ability of PAS is
Income assessment 0.500
Contribution in improvement of service –0.420 12.113* 0.270
Career opportunity 0.234
Linking with pay performance –0.619
R2F-ValueBetaVariable
Note: * P < 0.05.
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201656
On the judgment accuracy of PAS dimension, two factors, i.e., ‘the information
provided during my performance feedback is sufficiently detailed and level of
involvement in evaluating is adequate’ and ‘I am satisfied with my performance
feedback’, explain the feedback and satisfaction of performance appraisal tools.
On the performance-based pay system of PAS dimension, one factor, i.e., ‘a clear
and reasonable process established for giving both evaluation and performance-
based pay results’, explains the judgment accuracy of the PAS. On the participation
of workers/employees of PAS dimension, two factors, viz., ‘I would be willing to
participate in developing a new performance appraisal system’ and ‘I would prefer
my performance to be evaluated by an instrument developed and designed with
the help of employees’, explain the participation of workers/employee of performance
appraisal tools. On the whole or 360o appraisal of PAS dimension, two factors, viz.,
‘appraising my own performance would enhance my awareness of my performance’
and ‘I would prefer my performance to be evaluated additionally by my colleagues
because they have relevant performance information and insight’ explain the whole
or 360o appraisal of performance appraisal tools. On the ability of performance
system of PAS dimensions, four factors, viz., ‘contribution in improvement of service’,
‘linking with pay performance’, ‘my income assessment’ and ‘career opportunity’,
explain the ability of performance system of performance appraisal tools.
Perception of Workers and Managers on Arrangement/ Disarrangement of Importance of Attributes Essential for PAS As per the objectives (of the study of the perception of managers about the appropriateness of current performance system), the agreement of the workers and managers related to various independent factors were tested by using multivariate regression analysis with the first hypothesis. For the purpose of identifying the differences in the perception of worker appropriateness and managers, on 22 independent factors which were selected in Step-1, H
2 that the
perception of employee’s on performance appraisal system is considerably influenced by change in the management levels was tested.
To analyze the perceptions of workers and managers on selected factors, the independent sample t-test was applied, and the results are presented in Table 3.
In Step-2, the level of perception of the workers and managers on select factors of current PAS has been checked on various dimensions. On the dimension of ‘the instrument of performance appraisal has accurate, clear standards and measures’, significant gap exists between workers and managers. Further, the managers perceived the clarity of the standard in existing PAS more than the workers (
workers
= 2.8889 < managers
= 3.2759). On the dimension of ‘standards used to evaluate performance are clear’, significant gap exists between workers and managers. Further, the managers perceived that the existing PAS is well-designed more than
the workers ( workers
= 3.0794 < managers
= 3.4828). On the dimension of ‘it is clear
57Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
T a b
le 3
: R
e s u
lt s o
f In
d e p
e n
d e n
t S
a m
p le
t -
T e s t
A c c u
ra te
a n
d C
le a r
M e a s u
re s
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
0 .1
7 0
0 .6
8 1
– 2 .2
7 7
1 1 9
0 .0
2 5 *
– 0 .3
8 6 9 7
0 .1
6 9 9 6
– 0 .7
2 3 5 1
– 0 .0
5 0 4 3
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 2 .2
8 1
1 1 8 .7
9 0
0 .0
2 4
– 0 .3
8 6 9 7
0 .1
6 9 6 7
– 0 .7
2 2 9 4
– 0 .0
5 1 0 0
U n
d e rs
ta n
d in
g o
f M
e a s u
re s
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
5 .0
7 7
0 .0
2 6
– 0 .3
6 1
1 1 9
0 .7
1 9
– 0 .0
6 1 8 5
0 .1
7 1 1 8
– 0 .4
0 0 8 1
0 .2
7 7 1 1
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 0 .3
6 3
1 1 8 .7
3 8
0 .7
1 7
– 0 .0
6 1 8 5
0 .1
7 0 2 6
– 0 .3
9 8 9 9
0 .2
7 5 2 9
J o
b P
e rf
o rm
a n
c e R
e fl
e c te
d i
n P
A T
o o
l
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
7 .2
2 3
0 .0
0 8
– 1 .2
0 7
1 1 9
0 .2
3 0
– 0 .1
9 5 9 5
0 .1
6 2 3 4
– 0 .5
1 7 4 0
0 .1
2 5 5 0
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 1 .2
1 3
1 1 8 .8
3 7
0 .2
2 8
– 0 .1
9 5 9 5
0 .1
6 1 5 3
– 0 .5
1 5 8 0
0 .1
2 3 9 0
W e ll -D
e s ig
n e d
P A
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
1 .0
2 1
0 .3
1 4
– 1 .3
6 3
1 1 9
0 .1
7 6
– 0 .2
4 3 5 7
0 .1
7 8 7 4
– 0 .5
9 7 4 8
0 .1
1 0 3 5
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 1 .3
6 6
1 1 8 .9
1 8
0 .1
7 5
– 0 .2
4 3 5 7
0 .1
7 8 3 1
– 0 .5
9 6 6 5
0 .1
0 9 5 1
E v a lu
a ti
o n
S y s te
m i
s O
b je
c ti
v e a
n d
U n
b ia
s e d
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
2 .7
0 9
0 .1
0 2
1 .7
1 5
1 1 9
0 .0
8 9
0 .2
0 8 5 4
0 .1
2 1 6 0
– 0 .0
3 2 2 3
0 .4
4 9 3 1
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
1 .6
9 7
1 0 6 .9
8 1
0 .0
9 3
0 .2
0 8 5 4
0 .1
2 2 8 9
– 0 .0
3 5 0 8
0 .4
5 2 1 6
S ta
n d
a rd
s f
o r
E v a lu
a ti
o n
a re
C le
a r
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
0 .3
2 9
0 .5
6 7
– 2 .7
9 1
1 1 9
0 .0
0 6 *
– 0 .4
0 3 3 9
0 .1
4 4 5 5
– 0 .6
8 9 6 1
– 0 .1
1 7 1 7
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 2 .8
0 2
1 1 8 .9
8 8
0 .0
0 6
– 0 .4
0 3 3 9
0 .1
4 3 9 9
– 0 .6
8 8 5 0
– 0 .1
1 8 2 8
t- T e s t
fo r
E q
u a li ty
o f
M e a n
s 9 5
% C
o n
fi d
e n
c e
I n
te rv
a l
o f
th e
D if
fe re
n c e
U p
p e r
L o
w e r
S td
. E
rr o
r D
if fe
re n
c e
M e a n
D if
fe re
n c e
L e v e n
e ’s
T e s t
fo r
E q
u a li ty
o f
V a
ri a
n c e s
F -V
a lu
e S
ig .
t- V
a lu
e d
f S
ig .
( 2
- T
a il
e d
)
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201658
Ta b le
3 (
C o n t.
)
t- T e s t
fo r
E q
u a li ty
o f
M e a n
s 9 5
% C
o n
fi d
e n
c e
I n
te rv
a l
o f
th e
D if
fe re
n c e
U p
p e r
L o
w e r
S td
. E
rr o
r D
if fe
re n
c e
M e a n
D if
fe re
n c e
L e v e n
e ’s
T e s t
fo r
E q
u a li ty
o f
V a
ri a
n c e s
F -V
a lu
e S
ig .
t- V
a lu
e d
f S
ig .
( 2
- T
a il
e d
)
G o
a ls
a n
d A
s s ig
n m
e n
ts a
re C
le a r
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
4 .5
2 4
0 .0
3 5
– 1 .6
1 9
1 1 9
0 .1
0 8
– 0 .2
7 8 6 0
0 .1
7 2 0 3
– 0 .6
1 9 2 4
0 .0
6 2 0 4
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 1 .6
3 0
1 1 8 .2
5 7
0 .1
0 6
– 0 .2
7 8 6 0
0 .1
7 0 8 7
– 0 .6
1 6 9 7
0 .0
5 9 7 7
G o
a ls
a re
M e a n
in g
fu l
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
4 .3
8 4
0 .0
3 8
– 1 .0
3 4
1 1 9
0 .3
0 3
– 0 .1
4 1 2 2
0 .1
3 6 6 3
– 0 .4
1 1 7 5
0 .1
2 9 3 2
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 1 .0
4 2
1 1 7 .4
9 8
0 .3
0 0
– 0 .1
4 1 2 2
0 .1
3 5 5 2
– 0 .4
0 9 6 0
0 .1
2 7 1 7
P e rf
o rm
a n
c e G
o a ls
a re
R e a s o
n a b
le
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
1 2 .2
0 4
0 .0
0 1
– 1 .6
9 0
1 1 9
0 .0
9 4
– 0 .1
8 9 3 8
0 .1
1 2 0 9
– 0 .4
1 1 3 3
0 .0
3 2 5 6
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 1 .7
1 4
1 1 1 .3
9 5
0 .0
8 9
– 0 .1
8 9 3 8
0 .1
1 0 5 1
– 0 .4
0 8 3 6
0 .0
2 9 5 9
C o
u rs
e o
f A
c ti
o n
i s C
le a r
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
3 .3
3 5
0 .0
7 0
– 2 .8
9 2
1 1 9
0 .0
0 5 *
– 0 .4
3 5 1 4
0 .1
5 0 4 5
– 0 .7
3 3 0 4
– 0 .1
3 7 2 4
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 2 .9
1 2
1 1 8 .2
7 7
0 .0
0 4
– 0 .4
3 5 1 4
0 .1
4 9 4 4
– 0 .7
3 1 0 7
– 0 .1
3 9 2 1
G o
a l-
S e tt
in g
D e s c ri
b e O
rg a n
iz a ti
o n
s O
b je
c ti
v e s
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
3 1 .6
3 7
0 .0
0 0
– 3 .2
9 7
1 1 9
0 .0
0 1
– 0 .4
3 0 7 6
0 .1
3 0 6 7
– 0 .6
8 9 4 9
– 0 .1
7 2 0 3
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 3 .3
6 7
1 0 0 .3
7 0
0 .0
0 1 *
– 0 .4
3 0 7 6
0 .1
2 7 9 5
– 0 .6
8 4 6 0
– 0 .1
7 6 9 2
I n
fo rm
a ti
o n
o n
P e rf
o rm
a n
c e F
e e d
b a c k i
s S
u ff
ic ie
n tl
y D
e ta
il e d
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
0 .0
0 8
0 .9
3 0
– 0 .8
4 4
1 1 9
0 .4
0 1
– 0 .1
2 0 1 4
0 .1
4 2 4 2
– 0 .4
0 2 1 4
0 .1
6 1 8 6
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 0 .8
4 2
1 1 7 .0
6 0
0 .4
0 2
– 0 .1
2 0 1 4
0 .1
4 2 6 9
– 0 .4
0 2 7 2
0 .1
6 2 4 4
59Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
Ta b le
3 (
C o n t.
)
t- T e s t
fo r
E q
u a li ty
o f
M e a n
s 9 5
% C
o n
fi d
e n
c e
I n
te rv
a l
o f
th e
D if
fe re
n c e
U p
p e r
L o
w e r
S td
. E
rr o
r D
if fe
re n
c e
M e a n
D if
fe re
n c e
L e v e n
e ’s
T e s t
fo r
E q
u a li ty
o f
V a
ri a
n c e s
F -V
a lu
e S
ig .
t- V
a lu
e d
f S
ig .
( 2
- T
a il
e d
)
S a ti
s fi
e d
w it
h P
e rf
o rm
a n
c e F
e e d
b a c k
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
3 .7
2 2
0 .0
5 6
0 .4
2 6
1 1 9
0 .6
7 1
0 .0
6 4 0 4
0 .1
5 0 3 5
– 0 .2
3 3 6 6
0 .3
6 1 7 4
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
0 .4
2 8
1 1 8 .6
9 2
0 .6
6 9
0 .0
6 4 0 4
0 .1
4 9 5 1
– 0 .2
3 2 0 2
0 .3
6 0 1 0
C le
a r
a n
d R
e a s o
n a b
le P
ro c e s s
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
0 .0
2 0
0 .8
8 9
– 0 .8
1 0
1 1 9
0 .4
2 0
– 0 .1
2 2 3 3
0 .1
5 1 0 4
– 0 .4
2 1 4 0
0 .1
7 6 7 4
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 0 .8
0 8
1 1 7 .0
6 6
0 .4
2 0
– 0 .1
2 2 3 3
0 .1
5 1 3 2
– 0 .4
2 2 0 1
0 .1
7 7 3 5
W il li n
g t
o P
a rt
ic ip
a te
i n
P A
S D
e v e lo
p m
e n
t
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
1 5 .4
4 8
0 .0
0 0
0 .2
4 8
1 1 9
0 .8
0 5
0 .0
2 8 1 9
0 .1
1 3 8 6
– 0 .1
9 7 2 7
0 .2
5 3 6 4
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
0 .2
5 4
8 8 .7
4 1
0 .8
0 0
0 .0
2 8 1 9
0 .1
1 0 8 2
– 0 .1
9 2 0 1
0 .2
4 8 3 9
I n
s tr
u m
e n
t S
h o
u ld
B e D
e v e lo
p e d
w it
h H
e lp
o f
E m
p lo
y e e s
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
5 .8
9 4
0 .0
1 7
2 .6
0 3
1 1 9
0 .0
1 0
0 .3
7 7 1 2
0 .1
4 4 8 7
0 .0
9 0 2 6
0 .6
6 3 9 9
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
2 .5
9 1
1 1 4 .6
7 0
0 .0
1 1 *
0 .3
7 7 1 2
0 .1
4 5 5 5
0 .0
8 8 8 1
0 .6
6 5 4 3
I t
W o
u ld
E n
h a n
c e M
y A
w a re
n e s s o
n M
y P
e rf
o rm
a n
c e
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
0 .4
5 6
0 .5
0 1
– 1 .0
6 6
1 1 9
0 .2
8 9
– 0 .1
6 4 7 5
0 .1
5 4 5 3
– 0 .4
7 0 7 3
0 .1
4 1 2 2
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
– 1 .0
6 4
1 1 6 .6
7 7
0 .2
9 0
– 0 .1
6 4 7 5
0 .1
5 4 9 0
– 0 .4
7 1 5 3
0 .1
4 2 0 3
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201660
Ta b le
3 (
C o n t.
)
t- T e s t
fo r
E q
u a li ty
o f
M e a n
s 9 5
% C
o n
fi d
e n
c e
I n
te rv
a l
o f
th e
D if
fe re
n c e
U p
p e r
L o
w e r
S td
. E
rr o
r D
if fe
re n
c e
M e a n
D if
fe re
n c e
L e v e n
e ’s
T e s t
fo r
E q
u a li ty
o f
V a
ri a
n c e s
F -V
a lu
e S
ig .
t- V
a lu
e d
f S
ig .
( 2
- T
a il
e d
)
P re
fe r
to B
e E
v a lu
a te
d b
y C
o ll e a g
u e s
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
0 .4
9 5
0 .4
8 3
0 .1
8 4
1 1 9
0 .8
5 5
0 .0
2 6 0 0
0 .1
4 1 5 9
– 0 .2
5 4 3 7
0 .3
0 6 3 7
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
0 .1
8 4
1 1 8 .9
4 6
0 .8
5 4
0 .0
2 6 0 0
0 .1
4 0 9 8
– 0 .2
5 3 1 5
0 .3
0 5 1 5
I n
c o
m e A
s s e s s m
e n
t
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
7 .9
4 1
0 .0
0 6
2 .3
2 2
1 1 9
0 .0
2 2
0 .3
7 9 5 8
0 .1
6 3 5 0
0 .0
5 5 8 4
0 .7
0 3 3 3
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
2 .3
4 0
1 1 7 .6
3 4
0 .0
2 1 *
0 .3
7 9 5 8
0 .1
6 2 2 1
0 .0
5 8 3 6
0 .7
0 0 8 1
C o
n tr
ib u
ti o
n i
n I
m p
ro v e m
e n
t o
f S
e rv
ic e
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
0 .6
0 6
0 .4
3 8
0 .0
6 8
1 1 9
0 .9
4 6
0 .0
0 8 7 6
0 .1
2 8 8 7
– 0 .2
4 6 4 2
0 .2
6 3 9 4
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
0 .0
6 8
1 1 6 .5
7 1
0 .9
4 6
0 .0
0 8 7 6
0 .1
2 9 2 0
– 0 .2
4 7 1 3
0 .2
6 4 6 4
C a re
e r
O p
p o
rt u
n it
y
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
1 .3
3 5
0 .2
5 0
2 .5
5 9
1 1 9
0 .0
1 2 *
0 .3
0 2 6 8
0 .1
1 8 3 0
0 .0
6 8 4 4
0 .5
3 6 9 3
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
2 .5
7 6
1 1 8 .2
6 6
0 .0
1 1
0 .3
0 2 6 8
0 .1
1 7 5 1
0 .0
6 9 9 9
0 .5
3 5 3 7
L in
k in
g w
it h
P a y P
e rf
o rm
a n
c e
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s a ss
u m
e d
0 .2
4 5
0 .6
2 2
2 .4
3 4
1 1 9
0 .0
1 6 *
0 .3
5 9 0 6
0 .1
4 7 5 1
0 .0
6 6 9 8
0 .6
5 1 1 3
E q u a l v a ri a n ce
s n o t
a ss
u m
e d
2 .4
3 9
1 1 8 .8
5 1
0 .0
1 6
0 .3
5 9 0 6
0 .1
4 7 2 1
0 .0
6 7 5 6
0 .6
5 0 5 6
N o
te :
* p
-V a lu
e <
0 .0
5 .
61Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
that which course of action needs to be taken in order to accomplish performance
goals’, a significant gap exists between workers and managers. Further, the
managers perceived to accomplish performance goals in existing PAS more than
the workers ( workers
= 3.0476 < managers
= 3.4828). On the dimension, ‘goal-setting
gives me a broader picture of the work unit and the organizations objectives’, a
significant gap exists between workers and managers. Further, the managers
perceived the organizations objectives in existing PAS more than the workers ( workers
= 3.3968 < managers
= 3.8276).
On the dimension that ‘I would prefer my performance to be evaluated by an
instrument developed and designed with the help of employees’, a significant gap
exists between workers and managers. Further, for variable developed instrument
in the existing PAS, the workers perceived more than the managers ( workers
= 3.8254
> managers
= 3.4483). On the dimension of ‘my income assessment’, a significant gap
exists between workers and managers. Further, the workers perceived the income
assessment in existing PAS more than the managers ( workers
= 3.3968 > managers
= 3.0172). On the dimension of career opportunity’, a significant gap exists between
workers and managers. Further, the workers perceived the career opportunity in
existing PAS more than the managers ( workers
= 3.8889 > managers
= 3.5862). On the
dimension of ‘linking with pay performance’, a significant gap exists between the
workers and managers. Further, the workers perceived the pay link in existing PAS
more than the managers ( workers
= 3.6349 > managers
= 3.2759). No significant gap
exists between the other factors.
Conclusion Performance appraisal in an organization is always an idiosyncratic task which
must be executed under healthy environment so that the differences between the
employees and raters (assessing officer) can be reduced. In this research work, it
is found that there are various influencing factors which affect the PAS in public
sector enterprise. These factors must be used for preparing a future PAS for public
sector enterprises for improving organizational efficiency. The perception gap on
these selected PAS factors between the workers and managers were also
significant. Perception of managers supersedes that of workers in factors like clarity
of standards, well-designed PAS, course of action needed to be taken and goal
setting. However, the workers’ perception supersedes that of managers for factors
like development of PAS instrument with the help of employees, and they strongly
perceive that the improved PAS should be associated with their pay performance
and career opportunities.
The practical implication of a good PAS in the target organization can be witnessed
in the form of employees feeling that their contribution is important which in turn
increases their morale. Not only may the results of PAS in an organization clearly
reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the employees, but also effect self-change
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201662
in inflexible managers. Further, by communicating the PAS results along with the fact to the workers, managers convert it into an effective tool for motivation and growth of employees, leading to development of the organizations. The study also found that performance appraisal has an organizational impact, and thus it needs to be participative and must create a fair degree of objectivity between the appraisee and appraisers. If the PAS can be successfully modified taking all these factors into consideration, then will it serve the developmental needs more than the administrative ones.
Limitations: Despite the contributions, this study has several limitations. First, the sample of the study is only one Indian mining industry firm. The sample and operations, of course, limit the results of this study. The data are self-reported and subject to biases, and may not accurately describe the relationships with their assessing officer. Such data are also correlational. Developing different sources for the independent and dependent measures should reduce the possibilities of same source method as an alternative explanation of the results. Further, independent factors are more in numbers. In other words, there may be more factors influencing the relationship between workers and managers but may be ignored due to excess number of factors. Future research should take into consideration a greater sample size and more controlled factors so that we have more comprehensive data and more importantly data from the specific sources which have differences in their group.@
References 1. Amba-Rao S C, Petrick J A, Gupta J N and Embse T J V D (2000), “Comparative
Performance Appraisal Practices and Management Values Among Foreign and Domestic Firms in India”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 60-89.
2. Armstrong M (2001), Human Resource Management Practice, 8th Edition, Kogan Page Publishers, UK.
3. Armstrong M (2006), A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 10th Edition, Kogan Page Ltd., UK.
4. Armstrong M (2009), Armstrong’s Handbook of Performance Management: An Evidence-based Guide to Delivering High Performance, Kogan, UK.
5. Baldwin Timothy T, Richard J Magjuka, Brian T Loher (1991), “The Perils of Participation: Effects of Choice of Training on Trainee Motivation and Learning”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 51-65.
6. Banker R D, Lee Seok-Young, Gordon P and Srinivasan D (2001), “An Empirical Analysis of Continuing Improvements Following the Implement Action of Performance-Based Compensation Plan”, Journal of Accounting and Economic,
Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 315-350.
63Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
7. Banner D K and Cooke R A (1984), “Ethical Dilemmas in Performance Appraisal”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 3, pp. 327-333.
8. Baron A and Armstrong M (1998), “Out of Box”, People Management, Vol. 23, pp. 38-41.
9. Barry J M (1997), “Performance Management: A Case Study”, Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 35, available at http://www.questia.com/ read/print. Retrieved on September 29, 2008.
10. Beatrice I J M, Van der Heijden and André H J Nijhof (2004), “The Value of Subjectivity: Problems and Prospects for 360-Degree Appraisal Systems”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 493-511.
11. Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe (1998), “360-Degree Feedback and Leadership Development”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 35-44.
12. Bratton J and Gold J (2003), Human Resource Management: Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition, MacMillan Press, London.
13. Brett J F and Atwater L E (2001), “360 Degree Feedback: Accuracy, Reactions and Perceptions of Usefulness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 930-942.
14. Briscoe D B and Claus L M (2008), “Employee Performance Management: Policies and Practices in Multinational Enterprises”, in P W Budwah and A DeNisi (Eds)., Performance Management Systems: A Global Perspective, Routledge, Abingdon.
15. Brown Graham, Brian Bemmels and Laurie J Barclay (2010), “The Importance of Policy in Perceptions of Organizational Justice”, Human Relations, Vol. 63, No. 10, pp. 1587-1609.
16. Bruce Pfau (2002), “Does 360-Degree Feedback Negatively Affect Company Performance?”, HR Magazine Alexandria, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp. 54-56.
17. Cleveland J Murphy K and Williams Lemieux-Charles L (2003), “The Use of Multilevel Performance Indicators in Managing Performance in Health Care Organizations”, Management Decision, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 760-770.
18. Clinton O L and Nykodyan N (1996), “Public Sector Perform A Effectiveness: A Case Study”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 25, No 2, Summer, pp. 151-163.
19. Carneiro Marília Vidigal (1985), “Personnel Performance Appraisal in Libraries: A Literature Review”, Revista Ciência da Informação, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 9-12.
20. Cawley Brian D, Keeping Lisa M and Levy Paul E (1998), “Participation in the Performance Appraisal Process and Employee Reactions: A Meta-Analytic Review
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201664
of Field Investigations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 4,
pp. 615-633.
21. Chouhan V, Verma Pushpa, Sanghvi Himanshu and Gupta Apurv (2013),
“Assessing Worker’s and Manager’s Perception on Judgment Accuracy in
Performance Appraisal System (PAS)”, International Journal of Engineering,
Business and Enterprise Applications (IJEBEA), Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 95-99.
22. Church A H and Bracken D W (Eds.) (1997), “360-Degree Feedback Systems”,
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 84-87.
23. Condrey Stephen E (2012), “Public Human Resource Management: How We
Get Where We are Today”, in M Riccucci Norma (Org.) (Ed.), Public Personnel
Management, Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 5th Edition, Longman
Publishing Group, New York.
24. Craig S Bartholomew, Hannum and Kelly (2006), “Research Update: 360-Degree
Performance Assessment”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 117-124.
25. Curtis Ami B, Richard D Harvey and Daran Ravden, (2005), “Sources of Political
Distortions in Performance Appraisals: Appraisal Purpose and Rater
Accountability”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 42-60.
26. Cutler T (1992), “Vocational Training and British Economic Performance”, Work,
Employment and Society, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 161-183.
27. Daley M Dennis (1992), Performance Appraisal in the Public Sector: Techniques
and Applications, ABC-CLIO, 1-15.
28. Dalton M (1996), “Multirater Feedback and Conditions for Change”, Consulting
Psychology Journal, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 12-16.
29. Davis T and Landa M (1999), “A Contrary Look at Performance Appraisal”,
Canadian Manager/Manager Canadian, Fall, pp. 18-28.
30. De Silva S (1998), “Performance-Related and Skill-Based Pay: An Introduction”,
International Labour Office, Geneva.
31. DeNisi A S and Kluger A N (2000), “Feedback Effectiveness: Can 360-Degree
Appraisals Be Improved?”, ACAD Manage Prospect, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 129-139.
32. Dessler G (2008), Human Resource Management, 11th Edition, Prentice-Hall of
India Private Ltd., New Delhi.
33. Dorfman P W, Walter G S and Land J L (1986), “Per App Behaviour, Supervisor
Perceptions and Subordinate Reactions”, Personnel Psychology, Autumn,
pp. 579-598.
65Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
34. Erdogan B, Maria L K and Liden R C (2001), “Procedural Justice as a Two-
Dimensional Construct: An Examination in the Performance Appraisal Context”,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 205-222.
35. Facteau J D and Craig B (2001), “Are Performance Appraisal Ratings from
Different Rating Sources Comparable?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86,
No. 2, pp. 215-227.
36. Fajana S (2002), Human Resource Management: An Introduction, Labofin and
Company, Lagos.
37. Ferdowsian M and Charles D M (2002), “The Making of a Top-Performing
Employee in the High Technology Industry”, Dissertation Abstracts International,
Vol. 63, No. 7, p. 2613-A.
38. Fletcher C (1995), “New Directions for Performance Appraisal: Some Findings
and Observations”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 3,
No. 3, pp. 191-196.
39. Fletcher C and Williams R (1992), Performance Appraisal and Career Development,
Nelson Thornes Limited.
40. Flippo Edwin B (1984), Personnel Management, 6th Edition, p. 141, McGraw Hill,
New York.
41. French Jr. J R, Kay E and Meyer H H (1966), “Participation and the Appraisal
System”, Human Relations, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3-20.
42. Fryer K, Antony J and Ogden S (2009), “Performance Management in the Public
Sector”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 478-498.
43. Gerald T G and Douglas M I (2001), “Does Performance Appraisal Contribute
to Heightened Levels of Employee Burnout; The Results of One Study”, Personnel
Management Abstracts-5, Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 74.
44. Gibson S G, Harvey R J and Harris M L (2007), “Holistic Versus Decomposed
Ratings of General Dimensions of Work Activity”, Management Research News,
Journal, Vol. 30, No. 10, pp. 724-734.
45. Giles W F and Mossholder K W (1990), “Employee Reactions to Contextual and
Session Components of Performance Appraisal”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 371-377.
46. Gosselin A, Werner J M and Nicole Hallé (1997), “Ratee Preferences Concerning
Performance Management and Appraisal”, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Winter, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 315-333.
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201666
47. Green F and James D (2003), “Assessing Skills and Autonomy: The Job Holder
Versus the Line Manager”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 13,
No. 1, pp. 63-77.
48. Gundrsen D E (1993), “An Article Assessment of the Influences of Performance
and Selected Non-Performance Factors on Performance Evaluation and
Accuracy”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 53, No. 9, p. 3282-A.
49. Hall J L, Barry Z P and Harder J W (1998), “Performance Appraisal Systems:
Matching Practice with Theory”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 14,
No. 1, pp. 51-69.
50. Hall M (2002), “Aligning the Organisation to Increase Performance Results”,
The Public Manager, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 7.
51. Harris Michael M (1994), “Rater Motivation in the Performance Appraisal Context:
A Theoretical Framework”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 735-756.
52. Heneman Robert L, Michael L Moore and Kenneth N Wexley (1987),
“Performance-Rating Accuracy: A Critical Review”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 431-448.
53. Herman Robert D and David O Renz (2000), “Board Practices of Especially
Effective and Less Effective Local Nonprofit Organizations”, The American Review
of Public Administration, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 146-160.
54. Hogan E A (1987), “Effects of Prior Expectations on Performance Ratings: A
Longitudinal Study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 30, pp. 354-368.
55. HR Professional (2001), http://www.hrpao.org/HRPAO/knowledge.centre/HR
Professional/PA-15-1-2012, 465-2nd KBER 2011.
56. Ilgen D R, Fisher CD and Taylor M S (1979), “Consequences of Individual
Feedback on Behaviour in Organisations”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 64, August, pp. 349-371.
57. Jacobs R, Kafry D and Zedeck S (1980), “Expectations of Behaviorally Anchored
Rating Scales”, Personnel Psychology, Vol 33, No. 3, pp. 595-640.
58. Jawahar I M (2006), “Correlates of Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal
Feedback”, Journal of Labor Research, Spring, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 213-236.
59. Kandula S R (2011), Performance Management: Strategies, Interventions and
Drivers, PHI Learning Private Ltd., New Delhi.
60. Kanfer R (1990), Motivation Theory and Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
pp. 75-170 in M Dunnette and L Hough (Eds.), Handbook of I/O Psychology,
I Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
67Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
61. Keeping and Levy (2000), “Performance: A Reactions Measurement, Modelling and Method Bias”, Journal of Allied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 708-723.
62. Kennerley Mike (2002), “A Framework of the Factors Affecting the Evolution of Performance Measurement Systems”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 22, No. 11, pp. 1222-1245.
63. Kleiman Lawrence S and Richard L Durham (1981), “Performance Appraisal, Promotion and the Courts: A Critical Review”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 103-121.
64. Koike K (1994), “Learning and Incentive Systems in Japanese Industry”, in
M Aoki and R Dore (Eds.), The Japanese Firm: The Sources of Competitive Strength,
pp. 41-65, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
65. Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire W, Champagne F et al. (2003), “The Use of Multilevel
Performance Indicators in Managing Performance in Health Care Organizations”,
Management Decision, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 760-770.
66. Levy Paul E and Williams J R (2004), “The Social Context of Performance
Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 881-905.
67. Longenecker C A (1999), “Creative Effective Performance Appraisals”, Ind. Manag,
pp. 18-23.
68. Longenecker C O, Liverpool P R and Wilson K A (1988), “An Assessment of
Managerial/Subordinate Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Effectiveness”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Summer, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 311-320, in
T J Peter and M Austin (1983), A Passion, Longenecker et al. (1988).
69. Manikutty S (1990), “Dimensions of Equality and Inequality”, Journal of the
Railway Staff College, July-September, pp. 23-33.
70. Manoharan T R, Muralidharan C and Deshmukh S G (2009), “Employee
Performance Appraisal Using Data Envelopment Analysis: A Case Study”,
Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, Vol. 17, No. 1,
pp. 92-111.
71. Mayer Roger C and Davis James H (1999), “The Effect of the Performance
Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 1, pp. 123-136.
72. McGregor D (1957), “An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal”, Harvard
Business Review, May/June, pp. 13-38.
73. Morgan William Bryon (2000), “Validation of 360-Degree Appraisal Program as
an Effective and Fair Measurement of Individual Performance”, Dissertation
Abstracts International.
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201668
74. Mount M K and Thompson D E (1987), “Cognitive Categorization and Quality of
Performance Ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 240-246.
75. Murphy K and Cleveland J (1995), Understanding Performance Appraisal:
Social, Organizational and Goal-Oriented Perspectives, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
76. Napier N K and Latham G P (1986), “Outcome Expectancies of People Who
Conduct Performance Appraisals”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 827-837.
77. Nathan Barry R, Allan M Mohrman Jr. and John Milliman (1991), “Interpersonal
Relations as a Context for the Effects of Appraisal Interviews on Performance
and Satisfaction: A Longitudinal Study”, ACAD Manage Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2,
pp. 352-369.
78. Pattnaik M and Pattanaik B (2011), “Performance Appraisal System in Public
Sector Banks”, Data Mining and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 11,
pp. 714-719.
79. Peiperl M A (2001), “Getting 360 Degrees Feedback Right”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 142-147.
80. Rao T V (1986), “HRD: Expecting Too Much, Too Soon”, Business India, January,
p. 2.
81. Robert Gary E (1995), “Municipal Govt. Performance Appraisal System Practices:
Is the whole Less than the Sum of Its Parts”, Public Personnel Management,
Summer, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 197-221.
82. Roberts G E (2003), “Employee Performance Appraisal System Participation: A
Technique that Works”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 89-98.
83. Rothstein H R (1990), “Interrater Reliability of Job Performance Ratings: Growth
to Asymptote Level with Increasing Opportunity to Observe”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 322-327.
84. Rudner L M (2002), “Reducing Errors Due to the Use of Judges, Practical
Assessment”, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 7, No. 26, pp. 241-271.
85. Salgado V (2007), “Performance Management for Individuals and Institutions
in the Federal Government of the Brazilian Federal Republic”, XII Congreso
Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de La Administración Pública,
Sto. Domingo, Rep. Dominicana, October 30 to November 2.
86. Schleicher Deidra J, Rebecca A Bull and Stephen G Green (2010), “Rater
Reactions to Forced Distribution Rating Systems”, Human Relations, Vol. 63,
No. 10, pp. 1587-1609.
69Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
87. Shao Ruodan, Deborah E Ru, Daniel P Skarlicki and Kisha S Jones (2011), “Employee Justice Across Cultures: A Meta-Analytic Review”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 263-301.
88. Shibata H (2002), “Wage and Performance Appraisal Systems in Flux: A Japan-
United States Comparison”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 629-652.
89. Silverman Stanley B and Kenneth N Wexley (1984), “Reaction of Employees to Performance Appraisal Interviews as a Function of their Participation in Rating Scale Development”, Personnel Physiology, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 703-710.
90. Smith A D and Rupp W T (2004), “Knowledge Workers’ Perceptions of Performance Ratings”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 16, No. 3,
pp. 146-166.
91. Stasz C (2001), “Assessing Skills for Work: Two Perspectives”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 385-405.
92. Sulsky Lorne M and Balzer William K (1998), “Meaning and Measurement of Performance Rating Accuracy: Some Methodological and Theoretical Concerns”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 497-506.
93. Swiercz P M et al. (1999), “Do Perceptions of Performance Appraisal Fairness
Predict Employee Attitudes and Performance?”, Academy of Management Proceedings, p. 304.
94. Taggar Simon and Travor C Brown (2006), “Interpersonal Affect and Peer Rating Bias in Teams”, Small Group Research, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 86-111.
95. Taylor (1996), “Individual’s Reactions to Performance Feedback in Organisation: A Contend Theory Perspective”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21,
No. 4, pp. 959-956.
96. Tziner A and Kopelman R E (1992), “Effects of Performance Appraisal Format
on Perceived Goal Characteristics, Appraisal Process Satisfaction, and Changes in Rated Job Performance: A Field Experiment”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 127, No. 3, pp. 281-291.
97. Tziner Aharon, Gary P L, Bruce S P and Robert Haccoun (1996), “Development
and Validation of a Questionnaire for Measuring Perceived Political Considerations in Performance Appraisal”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 179-190.
98. Tziner Aharon and Kevin R Murphy (1999), “Additional Evidence of Attitudinal Influences in Performance Appraisal”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 407-419.
99. Varma Arup, Shaun Pichler and Ekkirala S Srinivas (2005), “The Role of Interpersonal Affect in Performance Appraisal: Evidence from Two Samples –
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201670
the US and India”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16, No. 11, pp. 2029-2044.
100. Verma P and Chouhan V (2014), “Measuring Validity of Performance Appraisal Tools in Performance Appraisal System of Public Sector”, Nirnay Research Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1-15.
101. Villanova, Peter H John Bernardin, Sue A Dahmus and Randi L Sims (1993), “Rater Leniency and Performance Appraisal Discomfort”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Autumn, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 789-799.
102. Waldman David A, Leanne E Atwater and David Antonioni (1998), “Has 360 Degree Feedback Gone Amok?”, ACAD Manage Prospect, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 86-94.
103. Welbourne T M, Johnson D E and Erez A (1998), “The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-Based Measure”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 540-555.
104. Wise P G (1998), Rating Differences in Multi-Rater Feedback, International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council’s Conference on Professional Personnel Assessment, Chicago, IL.
105. Woehr David J and Winfred Arthur Jr. (2003), ”The Construct-Related Validity of Assessment Center Ratings: A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Methodological Factors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 231-258.
106. Wyatt (1989), Performance Management Survey, The Wyatt Company, Washington DC.
107. Yadav R K and Dabhade N (2013), “Performance Management System in Maharatna Companies (A Leading Public Sector Undertaking) of India: A Case Study of BHEL, Bhopal (MP)”, International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 49-69.
108. Yoder Dale (1967), Personnel Management & Industrial Relation, Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi.
71Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
Appendix
Questionnaire
A. Personal Information
Name: …………………………………………………
Category: Employee Manager
Gender: Male/Female Age:..…………………………
Educational Qualification: .…………………… .……………………………
B. Are you satisfied with the current performance system?
(Please Tick [3] the appropriate box)
Extremely Dissatisfied Dissatisfied No Opinion
Satisfied Extremely Satisfied
C. Please display your degree of agreement/disagreement about current performance appraisal system.
i. Validity of Performance Appraisal Tool
1. The instrument of Performance Appraisal (PA) has accurate and clear standards and measures.
2. The PA instrument has clear and valid job-related measures.
3. The PA instrument accurately measures work on job.
4. I understand the measures used to evaluate my performance.
5. The most important part of my job performance is reflected in my PA.
6. I and my supervisor agree on what equals good job performance.
ii. Judgment Accuracy
7. The PA process results in a clear and unbiased appraisal.
8. The PA process results in better communication between myself and my supervisor.
[Please Tick [3] the Appropriate Box]
S. No. H
ig h
ly A
g re
e
A g
re e
N o
O p
in io
n
D is
a g
re e
H ig
h ly
D is
a g
re e
1 2 3 4 5
Question
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201672
Appendix (Cont.)
[Please Tick [3] the Appropriate Box]
S. No. H
ig h
ly A
g re
e
A g
re e
N o
O p
in io
n
D is
a g
re e
H ig
h ly
D is
a g
re e
1 2 3 4 5
Question
9. The best employee receives the highest evaluation scores.
10. The PA is well-designed and leads to better performance and work quality.
iii. Use of Correct Procedure
11. The supervisor possesses adequate knowledge and training to properly implement my performance evaluation.
12. The supervisor utilizes the evaluation system to assess my performance objectively and without bias.
13. Communication of problems with performance evaluation openly expressed to my supervisor.
14. Standards used to evaluate performance are clear.
15. The supervisor takes the PA procedure seriously.
16. I feel treated fairly during the PA process.
iv. Goal-Selection
17. The supervisor clearly expresses goals and assignments.
18. The goals developed for my performance period are meaningful measures.
19. I accept the assigned goals.
20. Performance goals set up for me are reasonable.
21. My supervisor allows helping to choose the goals that I am to achieve.
22. It is clear as to which course of action needs to be taken in order to accomplish performance goals.
23. Goal-setting gives me a broader picture of the work unit and the organization’s objectives.
v. Feedback and Satisfaction
24. The performance feedback is helpful in improving on-the-job performance and in attaining the goals.
25. I receive regular and timely performance feedback beside the annual performance.
73Analyzing the Performance Appraisal System of a Public Sector Organization in India: The Case of Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited
Appendix (Cont.)
[Please Tick [3] the Appropriate Box]
S. No. H
ig h
ly A
g re
e
A g
re e
N o
O p
in io
n
D is
a g
re e
H ig
h ly
D is
a g
re e
1 2 3 4 5
Question
26. The information provided during my performance feedback is sufficiently detailed and level of involvement in evaluating is adequate.
27. I am satisfied with my performance feedback.
28. There is possibility to discuss work-related issues with the supervisor in my performance feedback.
vi. Performance-Based Pay System
29. There is a clear, direct and compelling linkage between performance and pay in the PAS.
30. A clear and reasonable process is established for giving both evaluation and performance-based pay results.
31. I believe that the amount of performance-based pay I can earn through high evaluation ratings will make a noticeable difference in my future performance.
32. Performance-based pay based on performance ratings is the most effective method for motivating employees to improve/sustain performance.
vii. Participation of Workers/Employees
33. I would be willing to participate in developing a new performance appraisal system.
34. Participation of employees in the development of performance standards leads to a better performance appraisal instrument.
35. I would prefer my performance to be evaluated by an instrument developed and designed with the help of employees.
viii. Whole or ‘360-Degree’ Appraisal
36. Appraising my own performance would enhance my awareness of my performance.
37. I would prefer my performance to be evaluated additionally by my colleagues because they have relevant performance information and insight.
38. I would like to give my supervisor feedback on his/her performance.
The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XV, No. 1, 201674
Reference#02J-2016-01-04-01
Appendix (Cont.)
[Please Tick [3] the Appropriate Box]
S. No. H
ig h
ly A
g re
e
A g
re e
N o
O p
in io
n
D is
a g
re e
H ig
h ly
D is
a g
re e
1 2 3 4 5
Question
39. Being appraised by several sources (supervisor, peers, customers, etc.) would enhance the accuracy of performance appraisals and my performance.
ix. Ability of PAS is Significant in
40. Job security
41. My income assessment
42. Flexible working time
43. Contribution in improvement of service
44. Opportunity to exercise responsibility
45. Career opportunity
46. Leave settlement
47. Linking with pay performance
Copyright of IUP Journal of Management Research is the property of IUP Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
