Competency Based Performance Management System: An Initiative Towards A High Performing Ofganization.

future leadership roles and to ensure that they are equipped with competencies required to perform their current roles as well as the likely roles in future, the new PMS has given due weightage to three sets of competencies. These include:  Competencies required by all executives to perform their current managerial roles;  Competencies required to prepare them for future roles (potential factors), and  The values needed to be demonstrated by executives all through their career. Operational Details Every executive is required to exhibit certain competencies while achieving their KPAs. These competencies need to be discussed along with KPAs and common understanding arrived at for exhibiting these competencies and the indicators of these competencies. The performance, competencies, potential factors and values will carry different weightages as mentioned in the Table 5.1 given below: Table 5.1: Status of Competency Weightage Components E1-E5 E6-E7 E8-E9 50 Performance 60 50 20 15 Competencies 15 20 15 100 Values 15 15 Potential 10 15 Total 100 100 Source: SAIL Personnel Manual - New Executive Performance Management System The competencies required to be exhibited by every executive will include the following: A. Competencies 1. Technical/Functional competencies 2. Commercial acumen 3. Interpersonal skills and team work 4. Proactive Problem solving and Initiative 5. Communication skills (listening, clarity of thought and expression, written and oral) 6. Positive attitude (viewing things positively and with optimism and not being critical or cynical of everything; ability to look at brighter side of change and various other decisions, policies and innovations etc., and not being over critical or all the time critical of people and events, etc.) 175

B. Potential factors These are the qualities that become increasingly critical for senior management positions and are meant to prepare executives for handling higher roles as they grow in the organization. These are their ability to handle higher responsibilities including the following or more: 1. Vision and Leadership 2. Ability to assume responsibility and take decisions 3. Execution ability 4. Change Management (openness to change, initiate and manage change) 5. Creativity C. Values These include beliefs, behaviours and actions that are to be exhibited by every executive. 1. Customer focus 2. Consistent Profitability 3. Commitment to excellence 4. Concern for people Apart from the above values, there will also be judgement of integrity and character of the individual concerned, which is defined below: “Integrity and Character - defined as coherence between thought, word and deed  Speaking fearlessly what one feels (not having one thing in mind and speaking different things to please people or gain advantage of some kind or the other)  Attempting to keep up promises or verbal commitments (doing what he says)” In the beginning of the year, if any executive would like to receive training or any developmental inputs on any of these competencies (example, communication skills, vision, change management skills, etc.) he may incorporate the same into his Development Plan as explained in Development Planning. At the end of the year there will be self-assessed by the individual indicating both qualitatively and quantitatively his assessment of the manner and extent to which he exhibited these competencies. The qualitative inputs will be used for assessment by the reporting and reviewing officers besides their own observations. The self-assessment in quantitative terms, however, will not be known to the Reporting & Reviewing Officers until all three complete their assessments. 176

5.1.3 Development Planning Purpose and Philosophy The current thinking world-wide is that competency development should take place immediately on experiencing the competency gap or on the decision to build any new competency. It makes business sense to provide the training or any other development input on the basis of the need felt. The new system envisages that Training and Development needs are identified and planned in the beginning of the performance year. The assumption here also is that once performance plans or KPAs are identified and the competencies needed are known, the performer himself will be in a good position to identify his own needs. The development planning, therefore, is an effort initiated by the executive concerned with the help of his Reporting Officer and he completes the fulfillment of development needs with either self-initiative or with the help of the plant/unit HRD department / MTI. Operational Details  Every executive is required to identify his own developmental needs along with his plan for meeting the needs in the month of April itself and record the same along with his performance plan.  The training and developmental needs may arise out of new task or activities the executive concerned is expected to perform during the assessment period for which he does not have adequate knowledge or skills or any other competencies or some form of development interventions will help the executive concerned to perform better.  Based on available resources and Training Policy of the Company, the Training and Development plans are to be prepared at the beginning of the year. Any training and development support needed by the executive concerned from the organization is to be identified and stated in association with the Reporting officer in the beginning of the year in consultation with HOD.  The HOD will then decide at the beginning of the year the priority for covering the executives in the department and communicate the same to plant/unit HRD department/ MTI.  Such plans are automatically linked to MTI and other facilitating units/ departments (like, HRD) and actions planned accordingly and candidates are to be intimated periodically. 177

 Training shall be imparted to executives at the discretion of the Management. Self- development is the primary responsibility of the Individual executive concerned & Management can only facilitate to the extent possible. 5.1.4 On-line EPMS Philosophy and Purpose Technological innovations have revolutionized today’s corporate sector. E-governance and such other practices are the order of the day. Even small organizations with global presence have started using IT support to improve their management practice. SAIL has decided to use the technological innovations to its advantage. Use of IT makes performance planning easy; communications and documentation become great aids. Operational Details In the month of April, as soon as the Performance Planning and Goal Alignment workshops are over, each executive is required to plan his performance in terms of KPAs and record the same in the format provided in online PMS system. All KPAs and performance plans are to be put on-line. The online facility/system should be accessible by all executives and departments. Corporate IT department will ensure that the necessary IT infrastructure is in place at all Plants/ Units to facilitate the same. The following guidelines will be followed in the designing of the on-line EPMS:  Each executive to be assigned an EPMS ID.  Each executive would be required to record his/her KPAs along with the weightages within the stipulated time frame after which the system will shut down & no further recording will be allowed.  The filled in formats of the concerned executives will then be available to their respective Reporting Officers, Reporting Officer (O), Reviewing Officers and HOD, and OD & HRD.  Unit Heads, Corporate HR, Directors and Chairman will also have access to all the forms.  Key Performance Areas will be available for viewing to all executives across Plants/ Units at all times during the year.  After the KPAs are finalized & entered into the format in the Online PMS system within the stipulated time period, all concerned will have 24x7 access to the Online PM System to maintain their records in the 178

Performance Diary.  No one will be able to modify the forms or the entries other than those authorized to enter the data.  Modifications, if any, can be made in the Performance Plans by the individual concerned at any time during the year with the concurrence of the Reporting Officer.  MTI and HRD Departments will have access to the development plans and will be able to download them for analysis and planning their activities.  There will be a system of approval of all modifications in the KPAs and performance plans which can be operated by the Executive concerned & his Reporting Officer jointly.  Ratings or assessments will be visible to the executives concerned (Executive Concerned, Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer) and only the portions concerning them will be visible.  The ratings on performance will be visible to the executive concerned after finalization of the same by Performance Management Committee (PMC).  Once completed and approved electronically, ratings cannot be changed on the system. 5.1.5 Performance Review and Assessment  Half Yearly Review and Assessment by Self, Reporting and Reviewing Officers During the Assessment Year, Performance Diary is to be maintained online by both the executive concerned and his Reporting Officer highlighting the individual’s achievements / shortcomings in the fulfilment of KPAs. Rationale & Purpose The Performance Diary is a tool provided to the executive concerned for keeping record of key information related to performance. The individual concerned can make entries as and when required and all entries will be kept by date and time entered into the Online system. Each Individual executive’s entry is intimated to his Reporting Officer & every Reporting Officer’s remarks/ entries is intimated to the Individual executive concerned. The Reviewing Officer is able to view the Executive’s concerned Performance Diary whenever he desires. The diary is expected to ease the effort of tracking key performance events/activities and would be used as a support document during performance discussions. 179

 Performance Reviews (to be held twice a year–midyear & annually) Purpose & Rationale The mid-year & final reviews are specially focused on Feedback & Counseling and hence require the Reporting officer to have a formal feedback session with the executives reporting to him. When used effectively, Feedback & Counseling is a powerful tool for positively impacting performance.  Assessment is to be done only at the end of the assessment year. However, review discussions/feedback can be held between individual concerned & his Reporting Officer any number of times during the year and the same should be recorded in the system.  In the middle of the performance year (i.e., in the month of October) every executive is expected to make a self-review of the performance plans by indicating the status of activities undertaken & accomplishments/highlights of performance.  The Reporting officer needs to make on-line comments on the same after discussion with the executive concerned and record them in the format provided in the Online EPMS system. The reviewing officer needs to be kept appraised by seeing the same and passing his comments, if any, on the Reporting officer and the Executive concerned. These can be viewed by the executive concerned, Reporting and Reviewing Officers and HOD.  The Reporting Officer should also assist the executive concerned in identifying and developing competencies for the subsequent period and a Performance Review Discussion (PRD) is recommended. The developmental activities, if any, also may be recorded in the development plan column.  Final Review and Assessment On-line  The qualitative comments of the Individual & Reporting Officer should be recorded on the online PMS format on completion of the assessment year.  The individual concerned, Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer should then rate the executive concerned independently against the weightages of respective KPA parameters. The final assessments of each of the assessors (executive concerned, Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer) will be visible to Reporting and Reviewing Officers only after all the three of them 180

complete the assessments.  The final assessment is to be made by the Performance Management Committee after completion of the assessment period, as per the time schedule given in the guidelines, preferably before the finalization of performance plans for the next year. 5.1.6 Final Performance categorization of Ratings by the Performance Management Committee (PMC) Purpose and Rationale SAIL recognizes that every individual’s performance is dependent on the competencies of the officer concerned including his ability to manage and get the support he requires, his motivation as reflected in the effort he puts in to perform various KPAs and related activities he undertakes, and the support he receives to perform various tasks and activities. The performance is also subject to unpredictable and unexpected chance occurrences/ contingencies. A good manager and leader is able to predict the unexpected to a large extent and plan for continuous performance as organizational performance depends on each individual performing well. Experience across the world and studies have indicated that subjectivity is an inevitable part of Performance appraisals. No two appraisers are comparable as the circumstances, competencies, work effort and support received or managed for different executives may not always be comparable. Use of numerical numbers requires standardization and comparability. While work output delivered at lower levels by workmen are comparable to some extent as they are measured in physical quantities, the output of performance of supervisors, and executives become incomparable on objective parameters. Thus the ratings assigned by the executives, Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer are subject to subjectivity and interpretations. Recognizing the subjective nature of the appraisal, it becomes necessary to ensure that relatively good performers are recognized and encouraged through performance rewards, incentives etc. In this process, determination of who can be called as good performer is subject to various dilemmas. The first problem arises in fixing standards as the KPAs are varied, tasks are varied it is difficult to fix comparable standards for all officers. Recognizing this, SAIL EPMS uses a committee system to reduce subjectivity and recognize the good performer. 181

Operational Details  The Performance Management Committee consists of the Reporting Officer, Reviewing Officer and the HOD.  The HOD plays a rationalization role as he always has more information of the performance of the department as well as the performance of various sections. Taking into consideration the team performance and the individual contribution to the team performance and also taking into account the inputs from the Reporting & Reviewing Officers and using the inputs provided by the executive concerned, the PMC assesses & categorizes each of the officer’s performance for the assessment year into four categories as per assessment table given below:  EP = Exceptional Performer (to be given very sparingly for role models, unquestionable, all agree, Consensus)  HP = High Performer (Exceeds all targets, agreed by all as an excellent performer),  AP = Average Performer (Meets minimum targets / requirements)  LP = Low Performer (Not able to complete targets and needs to improve delivery of results)  This categorization is based on various factors which may not have got fully reflected in the forms:  The level of difficulty and challenge taken by the executive in the year in terms of KPAs and activities.  The level of accomplishments or contributions of the executive to department’s  goals/ performance and output.  The extent to which he received support from other input providers, including his internal suppliers and customers.  Assessment formats and other details as recorded in the on-line EPMS.  There will be two categorizations of assessment/rankings done: One for Performance and the second for Competencies, which also includes potential and values.  The PMC consisting of Reporting, Reviewing Officers and HoD decides all the four categories as mentioned at para 2 above, taking into account various inputs of the on-line system, assessments and other factors including the relative performance of others and the favorability/un-favorability of the conditions, internal support 182

and input availability, efforts made etc.  The High Level PMC will finalize Exceptional Performer from the High Performers (say a particular %age) and Low Performers by recording 2 major achievements/ shortcomings for categorizing executives into these 2 categories.  Any developmental needs arising out of the review will be pointed out and posted on the Online PMS system for use by the executive, HRD and MTI. 5.1.7 Communication of Performance Grading to the Executives (Transparency) Rationale Transparency through revealing of the marks and grades will be done in a phased manner. Final grades and performance reports will be revealed initially. Revealing of actual marks awarded by Reporting and Reviewing officers maybe contemplated subsequently on SAIL gaining confidence provided they don’t create interpersonal and team conflicts. Performance Review Discussions (PRD) to be held twice a year prior to assessment. Use of on-line system to be encouraged for PRD discussions. Operational details On-line PMS system will be used to ensure transparency, compliance and timeliness. Initially, for bringing in a culture of transparency through the EPMS system & giving feedback to the individuals concerned, it has been decided to reveal the final grades of the individual along with the development plan, on completion of the performance assessment process as per fixed time schedule. Development Plan for Low Performers In case of executives categorized as Low Performers in a particular assessment year, a definite development plan has to be communicated to the individual concerned along with his final grade by the PMC for enhancing their performance in their next assessment year & bringing them back into the system as better performers. If need be, the executive concerned can be rotated to other departments/units for his/her improvement. 5.1.8 Assessing assessors for higher accountability Purpose and Rationale SAIL recognizes that our Indian Culture is that of relationship building and people value culture by nature. In such a culture, it is difficult to give negative feedback in face to face and it has been a normal practice to communicate only positive 183

feedback to employees. SAIL also recognizes that in the past, intention to give high ratings is used as a motivating mechanism and that is how a lot of subjectivity creeps in. Most often, a Reporting or a Reviewing Officer may feel that a particular executive has done only a poor job or a below average job but communicates to the executive concerned that he has done a great job to buy his motivation for the future. Raters vary in their philosophy and approach. Some are strict and more objective and may swing to one extreme, while a few others may be lenient and generous. However, to make the system become less subjective and to ensure that all executives use similar standards, an attempt is being made to develop all assessors to be more objective and make proper judgment of the performance of their juniors. This is a long term goal. A beginning is being made from the current EPMS to introduce a system of assessing the assessors and also to audit the implementation of the PMS. This will be done through the following:  Assessing the Assessors by studying their rating behavior and giving them feedback about their rating behavior.  Using EPMS Audit Committees periodically to review the implementation of the EPMS. Operational Details A. Rating behavior of Assessors  At the end of the assessment year, each rater’s (Reporting as well as Reviewing Officers) assessments will be statistically analyzed to determine his rating behavior and feedback will be given to him.  Each executive is expected to fill a form giving details of his experience with the assessment process and also give his assessment of the rating behavior of the Reporting Officer. A simple five to six item rating scale will be used and the ratings communicated to each Reporting Officer.  A new Credibility Quotient to be developed for each assessor on the basis of their rating behavior and communicated to them to improve their rating behavior. B. EPMS Audit Committee  Every Plant/Unit will also have an EPMS Audit Committee to review and audit the implementation of the EPMS. The EPMS Audit Committee will meet during the stipulated time period.  The Audit Committee will look into the individual grievances/appeals, if any, received during the year at the end of the assessment year, look into these cases, 184

study the ratings, interview some of the candidates as they deem fit and make suggestions to improve the EPMS and its implementation.  Assessors from departments with average performance, but giving high ratings for their juniors to be questioned by the PMS Audit Committee. 5.1.9 Leadership Development and Competency Building through 360 Degrees Feedback and Assessment and Development Centres Rationale In the recent year, a lot of development has taken place in the field of performance management. Two such developments include the 360 Degree Feedback and the Assessment and Development Centers. The 360 Degree Feedback is a multi- rater feedback in which the candidate is assessed at the end of the year by his juniors, seniors, internal customers, external customers, wherever applicable. These along with Self-assessment by the executive concerned gives insights into the impact made by the Executive on his juniors, seniors, and internal customers and helps the Executive Concerned to improve his performance in subsequent period. Particularly in cultures where employees don’t give objective feedback to each other due to a desire to maintain good relations, it has been found to be useful. SAIL has decided to use this system selectively for the development of its Senior level executives. The 360 Degrees Feedback is being tried out on an experimental basis and will be used as a development tool. Assessment and Development Center is a specially created center in which a series of exercises are used to assess the competencies of a given individual for jobs he/she has usually not performed so far. Assessment centers have become a useful technique to assess the competencies needed by officers for higher level jobs and use the information to develop individuals to perform higher level jobs or roles. An assessment center uses a variety of testing techniques designed to allow candidates to demonstrate, under standardized conditions, the skills and abilities that are most essential for success in a given job. Assessment centers consist of standardized evaluation of behaviour based on multiple inputs. Features of an assessment center include measurement of techniques selected based on job analysis, simulation exercises, assessors’ behavioural observations (classified into meaningful and relevant categories), and use of multiple assessors for each candidate. In an Assessment center the candidate is assessed by external assessors on a set of predetermined competencies 185

using multiple methods. Thus the data generated are supposed to be more objective and have been found to have a reasonable degree of predictive validity. Due to their predictive validity, they are being used in India for development purposes. Operational details  SAIL proposes to use 360Degrees Feedback(360DF) and Assessment and Development Centres (ADCs) for developing future leaders and to prepare managers for their future roles.  Data from 360DF will not to be used for promotion decisions, but the improvements and accomplishments shown by an executive after 360 Degree feedback and assessment by ADCs to be indicators of leadership competencies.  In subsequent years, Competencies, Potential and Values to be assessed on the basis of ADCs or other tools and incorporated into the PMS. 5.1.10 Team appraisals Purpose and Rationale There are a lot of interdependencies among various work processes in SAIL as it largely works with integrated steel plant technology. In an integrated steel plant as work interdependencies are high, team work becomes very critical. Recognizing this, the SAIL PMS system introduces team appraisal. The team appraisal will consist of the following:  Identification of Team KPAs and contributions to the Unit or departmental performance in the beginning of the year and in line with APP.  Self-assessment at the end of the year by the team.  Assessment by the Departmental committee or plant level or unit level committee to determine A class, B class and C class performers among various teams.  Team rewards in kind like celebrations, certificates and other forms of recognition. Team appraisals to be introduced and teams identified and KPAs outlined as a part of goal alignment cascade exercise at the beginning of the year. Details of the team appraisals will be evolved after the first year of implementation of the EPMS. 5.1.11 Performance linked pay and other rewards Performance Linked Pay, Rewards and Incentives have become the order of the day. These are necessary and are good ways of keeping up employee motivation, morale, 186

reducing absenteeism and increasing retention as well as contributing to their quality of life. In the past, employees used to be given incentives largely through promotions and sometimes, depending on their experience and period of stay with the company, loyalty used to be rewarded through career progression and status linked incentives. Developments in the industry have given rise to a variety of incentives and rewards. SAIL as a PSU would like to use as many of these experiences as possible, but it also has a philosophy of offering a career at SAIL as the main incentive for performance. SAIL is for those who have a long commitment to make and build their career. At the same time as SAIL cannot keep creating new positions on a continuous basis, the avenue of granting promotions as an incentive becomes limited. Hence, new systems need to be thought of and therefore, the move is to start a performance linked pay on a selective basis. This is a one-time lump sum amount given to individuals on the basis of their outstanding performance during a particular assessment year. In addition, SAIL also plans to introduce the following forms of nonfinancial rewards: 1. Achievement Rewards consisting of: a. Wider Job design, 2. Recognition consists of: a. Praise, b. Long service awards, c. Work related trips abroad, d. Chairman’s Dinner, e. Directors Dinner, etc. 3. Influence Enhancing recognitions and awards such as: a. Task Forces, b. Committees, c. Achiever’s Forum etc. 4. Responsibility enhancing rewards and recognition such as: a. Personal growth, b. Additional responsibilities, c. Promotions, etc. 5. Team Rewards a. Team celebrations b. Picnics and other forms 187

SAIL intends to introduce performance linked pay and recognition systems. SAIL believes in the philosophy that good performance should be recognized and rewarded. The quantum of rewards and the form of rewards depends upon many factors. The recognition and rewards may take many forms. Details of the performance linked pay and other rewards will be evolved after the first year of the implementation of the EPMS. 5.1.12 Tenure:  The Company reserves the right to withdraw the system at any time without notice.  Chairman, SAIL, is authorized to approve the details under the policy and the appraisal formats for implementation of the same. He is also authorized to amend or modify the system, rules and guidelines, as and when required.  For effective implementation of the Executive Performance Management System in SAIL, the system should be reviewed after the first, third and fifth year of its implementation and every five years hence to bring in systemic improvements. 5.2. Non-Executive Performance Management System  Scope The Non-Executive Performance Management System is aimed at performance and development planning and assessing the performance, potential, competencies and values of Non-Executives up to S-11 grade.  Objectives  To enable employees to plan their work, utilize their capabilities and maximize their contributions.  To create a performance culture through continuous performance improvements of individual employees, teams and the organization.  Assessment of Performance Appraisal System For assessment of Non-Executive Performance Appraisal System i.e. Confidential Character Report (CCR) of the non-executive employees (Technical & Non- Technical), the Reporting and Reviewing officers have been allotted with User name & Password to login to the Personnel Information System (PIS) Website for the above 188

purpose. All Reporting Officers and Reviewing Officers are required to complete the online CCR assessment within the stipulated time schedule i.e. by 31st March of every year.  Performance Appraisal System for Non-Executive Employee (Technical)  Assessment of Attendance In accordance with the SAIL Personnel Policy, assessment of the annual CCR in respect of the employees covered under the Factories Act, so far as their attendance is concerned, is done on the basis of the number of days they work during the year of assessment as indicated hereunder in the table 5.2 Table 5.2: Assessment of Attendance (NE: Technical) Number of Days worked Assessment of Attendance 300 days and above Very Good / Outstanding 270 days to 299 days Good 240 days to 269 days Satisfactory 210 days to 239 days Indifferent / Poor 209 days & below Very Poor Source : SAIL Personnel Policy Circular (No.207) Attendance: Actual attendance including EL (Earned Leave), Maternity Leave (off days & holidays falling between EL to be excluded), Child Care Leave, Participation in training programme, sports/cultural and union activities duly sponsored by the Management, period of disability due to IOW (Injury on Works) and period of hospitalization for other reasons of sickness in the SAIL Hospital and/or in an outside hospital referred to by SAIL Hospital as an outdoor patient.  Assessment of Appraisal Factor Score The Definitions of Appraisal Factors in respect of Non-Executive Employees (Technical) are as follows:  Performance on the job  Quality and Quality of Output  Neatness and accuracy at work  Adherence to norms, procedures and time schedule  Ability to identify problems, prioritize them, analyze alternative courses of action and take decisions 189

 Job Knowledge & Skill  Knowledge pertaining to the area of work assigned and also in related areas  Ability to put this knowledge into practice  Motivation to learn and keep oneself updated in his/her area of work  Developing multi skill  Conduct and Behaviour  General behaviour  Approach to work  Following instructions  Ability to work as a team leader  Amenability to discipline  Punctuality & availability on job  Availability of work place on time  Regular Attendance  Innovativeness  Ability to think and implement new and better ways to do the assigned tasks and also in related areas  Giving suggestions for improvement  Participation in Srujani / QC activities  Cost & Quality Consciousness  Proper and economic use of machinery, equipment and other resources at hand  To eliminate wastages  Meeting prescribed quality standards (Quality of job by Ministerial Staff)  Initiative and Capacity for assuming higher responsibility  Desire to learn  Keenness to take up higher responsibility  Ability and willingness to act as team-leader for integrating employees into teams and for motivating them  Housekeeping and Safety Consciousness  Maintenance and upkeep of work place  Maintenance of registers / Office Records / Log books  Adherence to safety norms and procedures 190

 Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and general safety at work place The Appraisal Factor Score in respect of the Non-Executive Employees (Technical), covered under the Factories Act, is mentioned in the Table 5.3 given below: Table 5.3: Assessment of Appraisal Factor Score (NE: Technical) Sl. No. Factor Maximum Marks 1. Performance on the job 20 2. Job knowledge and skill 15 3. Conduct and Behaviour 15 4. Punctuality and availability on the job 10 5. Innovativeness 10 6. Cost & Quality Consciousness 10 7. Initiative and Capacity for assuming higher responsibility 10 8. Housekeeping and Safety Consciousness 10 Total Factor Score (TFS) 100 Source: CCR for Non-Executive Employees of SAIL (Technical)  Assessment of Appraisal Rating The Appraisal Rating in respect of the Non-Executive Employees (Technical), covered under the Factories Act, is mentioned in the Table 5.4 given below: Table 5.4: Assessment of Appraisal Rating (NE: Technical) Assessment Outstanding Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor (C-) (O) (A) (B) (C) 36 & below Assessment (Avg. TFS) 90 & above 75 to 89 50 to 74 37 to 49 Attendance 300 & above 270 to 290 240 to 269 210 to 239 209 & Below Source : CCR for Non-Executive Employees of SAIL (Technical)  Performance Appraisal System for Non-Executive Employee (Non-Technical)  Assessment of Attendance In accordance with the SAIL Personnel Policy, assessment of the annual CCR in respect of the employees not covered under the Factories Act, so far as their attendance is concerned, is done on the basis of the number of days they work during the year of assessment. 191

Attendance Actual attendance, including EL (Earned Leave), Maternity Leave (off days & holidays falling between EL to be excluded), Child Care Leave, Participation in training programme, sports/cultural and union activities duly sponsored by the Management, period of disability due to IOW (Injury on Works) and period of hospitalization for other reasons of sickness in the SAIL Hospital and/or in an outside hospital referred to by the SAIL Hospital as an outdoor patient. The assessment of attendance in respect of non-executive employees (nontechnical) is indicated hereunder in the Table 5.5: Table 5.5: Assessment of Attendance (NE: Non-Technical) Number of Days worked Assessment of Attendance 285 days and above Very Good / Outstanding 255 days to 284 days Good 225 days to 254 days Satisfactory 195 days to 224 days Indifferent / Poor 194 days & below Very Poor Source: SAIL Personnel Policy Circular (No.207)  Assessment of Appraisal Factor Score The definitions of appraisal factors in respect of non-executive employees (nontechnical) are as follows:  Performance on the job  Quality and Quality of Output  Neatness and accuracy at work  Adherence to norms, procedures and time schedule  Ability to identify problems, prioritize them, analyse alternative courses of action and take decisions  Job Knowledge & Skill  Knowledge pertaining to the area of work assigned and also in related areas  Ability to put this knowledge into practice  Motivation to learn and keep oneself updated on his/her area of work  Developing multi skill 192

 Conduct and Behaviour  General behaviour  Approach to work  Following instructions  Ability to work as a team leader  Amenability to discipline  Punctuality & availability on the job  Availability of work place on time  Regular Attendance  Innovativeness  Ability to think and implement new and better ways to do the assigned tasks and also in related areas  Giving suggestions for improvement  Participation in Srujani / QC activities  Cost & Quality Consciousness  Proper and economic use of machinery, equipment and other resources at hand  To eliminate wastages  Meeting prescribed quality standards (Quality of job by Ministerial Staff)  Initiative and Capacity for assuming higher responsibility  Desire to learn  Keenness to take up higher responsibility  Ability and willingness to act as team-leader for integrating employees into teams and for motivating them  Housekeeping and Safety Consciousness  Maintenance and upkeep of work place  Maintenance of registers / Office Records / Log books  Adherence to safety norms and procedures  Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and general safety at workplace The appraisal factor scores in respect of the non-executive employees (nontechnical), not covered under the Factories Act, is mentioned in the Table 5.6 given below: 193

Table 5.6: Assessment of Appraisal Factor Score (NE: Non-Technical) Sl. No. Factor Maximum Marks 1. Performance on the job 20 2. Job knowledge and skill 15 3. Conduct and Behaviour 15 4. Punctuality and availability on job 10 5. Innovativeness 10 6. Cost & Quality Consciousness 10 7. Initiative and Capacity for assuming higher responsibility 10 8. Housekeeping and Safety Consciousness 10 Total Factor Score (TFS) 100 Source: CCR for Non-Executive Employees of SAIL (non-technical)  Assessment of Appraisal Rating The appraisal rating in respect of the non-executive employees (nontechnical), covered under the Factories Act, is mentioned in the table 5.7 given below: Table 5.7: Assessment of Appraisal Rating (NE: Non-Technical) Assessment Outstanding Good Satisfactory Poor Very Poor (C-) (O) (A) (B) (C) 36 & below Assessment (Avg. TFS) 90 & above 75 to 89 50 to 74 37 to 49 Attendance 300 & above 270 to 290 240 to 269 210 to 239 209 & Below Source: CCR for Non-Executive Employees of SAIL (non-technical)  Guidelines for Assessment of Appraisal System  In case any major punishment or 2 minor punishments relating to any of the factors has been imposed, the marking in respect of that factor should be less than 50% entailing adverse communication).  In case any major punishment or 2 minor punishments relating to authorized absence has been imposed, the Attendance Grading shall be C or C- even if indicated otherwise in the rating chart.  Average factor below 50% would entail adverse communication (Poor or Very Poor) against that particular factor. Likewise, Attendance Grading of C or C- would also entail adverse communication.  Marking below 50% (entailing adverse communication must have supported by appropriate records/documents. 194

More importantly, performance management systems implemented by the firm will focus on opening up decision making processes to enable employees to develop their professional skills in the long term. As a result, this will allow employees to contribute to the long term success of the organization by proposing valuable ideas which will improve the quality of results attained. Appraisal systems which the organization will use will enable it to be fair to all its employees to encourage them to attain good results in their respective workstations. Performance appraisal is one of the most important factors in any organization and also a great tool used to record productivity. Every organization has to have goals and objectives established and every employee has to be involved in the process. Also conducting a performance appraisal will improve productivity and also the morale of the employees. Appraisals are a positive way for a manager to let the employees know how well they are performing the duties that are assigned to them. 195

CHAPTER - VI DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

CHAPTER - VI DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Primary data relating to the various aspects of performance management system of Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP) towards better organizational performance were collected for this study from both, executives and supervisors of RSP through a structured questionnaire. Out of the total 640 questionnaires administered, only 412 valid responses (64.38 per cent) have been collected from the respondents which were included in this study (table 6.1). The routing of the responses (opinions) was done with the help of Likert‘s five point scale (strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neither agree nor disagree = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1). After the data had been collected, it was processed and analyzed through statistical package (SPSS) version 21 to set the cause and effect relationship in order to draw the conclusion. In order to minimize the chances of getting wrong answers during the process of data analysis, attention is paid to both reliability and validity. Reliability shows how consistent the findings are while validity is concerned with whether the findings are really about what they appear to be. Various statistical tools such as: descriptive statistics, correlation and regression analysis were used to analyze the data and for making the study more realistic and easily understandable. All variables, both dependent and independent were said to be correlated when they tend to simultaneously vary in the same or reverse direction. If both the variables tend to increase or decrease together, the correlation is said to be direct or positive. When one variable tends to increase and the other decreases, the correlation is said to be negative or inverse. 6.1 Demographic Profile The demographic profile of the respondents has been recorded in the first part of the questionnaire, tabulated and reflected in the table 6.2, which depicts that the respondents of this study consist of both executives and non-executives, working mainly in different departments of RSP. The sample was composed of 86.16 % males and 13.83 % females, which indicates a skewed profile of the respondents working in RSP, which comprises the majority of males. The age group of the respondents included in the study 196

varies between 26 - 60 years; about 32.03 % of the samples belong to the age group of 36 - 45 years, 28.64 % belongs to the age group of 26 - 35 years, 26.69 % to 46-55 years, and about 12.62 % of the samples belong to the age group of 56-60 years. The years of experience among the respondents ranges from 1 to 40 years. But 31.55 % of the respondents have an experience of 11 - 20 years, 29.61 % have 1 - 10 years, 30.82 % have 21 – 30 years, and 8 % of the respondents have an experience of 31 - 40 years in RSP. Table 6.1: Response Rate Executives Non – executives Total 220 420 Administration of 640 Questionnaires 158 (71.81) 254 (60.47) 412 (64.38) Questionnaires Administered Total Valid Responses Received 355 (86.16) Source: Compiled by the author. 57 (13.83) Table 6.2: Demographic Profile 118 (28.64) 132 (32.03) Variables Respondents 110 (26.69) 52 (12.62) Executives Non – executives 122 (29.61) 130 (31.55) Gender 122 (77.21) 233 (91.73) 127 (30.82) Male 36 (22.78) 21 (8.26) 33 (8.00) Female Age group 26 - 35 years 44 (27.84) 74 (29.13) 36 – 45 years 68 (43.03) 64 (25.19) 46 – 55 years 31 (19.62) 79 (31.10) 56 – 60 years 15 (9.49) 37 (14.56) Experience 80 (31.49) 72 (28.34) 1 - 10 years 42 (26.58) 92 (36.22) 10 (3.93) 11- 20 years 58 (36.70) 21 - 30 years 35 (22.15) 31 - 40 years 23 (14.55) (Figures within parenthesis indicate about percentage). Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2 Analysis and Results The hypotheses have been tested by using statistical techniques of correlation and multiple regression analysis. The descriptive statistics tables show the mean and standard deviation of all the variables considered for the study. The mean scores give the average of the responses while the standard deviation is a measure of the way in which the mean represents the data. The mean is a hypothetical representation of the data set. It does not give an accurate representation of the variability in the data. A cronbach‘s alpha is a statistic and generally used as a measure of internal consistency or reliability of a 197

psychometric instrument. The theoretical value of alpha varies from 0 to 1, since it is the ratio of two variances. However, depending on the estimation procedure used, estimates of alpha can take on any value less than or equal to 1, including negative values, although only positive values make sense (Ritter, 2010). Higher values of alpha are more desirable. Some professionals have defined (Nunnally, 1978; Kline, 1994) as a rule of thumb, require a reliability of 0.70 or higher before use of an instrument. The cronbach‘s alpha (table 6.3) shows the reliability of the data. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) between two variables is defined as the covariance of the two variables divided by the product of their standard deviations. The value of r allows us to determine the strength and direction of a relationship between the two variables in the study. The coefficient table showcases a range of unstandardized and standardized coefficients. The standardized coefficients refer to how many standard deviations a dependent variable will change when the standard deviation increases for each independent variable, as all the independent variables have been standardized so that their variance are 1 (Hair et al., 2010). The regression analysis is a statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables, where the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. The model fit table gives the value of R2, which is the proportion of variance of the dependent variable explained by the independent variables and adjusted R2, which is the modified measure that indicates the fitness of the model in which the value should ideally be equal to or near the value of R2. Table 6.3: Scale Reliability No. of Items Cronbach Alpha (α) 7 0.816 Construct 7 0.792 Workplace Environment (WE) 9 0.837 Employee Competency (EC) 7 0.822 Performance Standards and Expectations (PSE) 8 0.819 Performance Appraisal (PA) 9 0.868 Employee Training (ET) 8 0.782 Post Appraisal Measures (PAM) 5 0.833 Facilitators of Performance Management (FPM) 3 0.822 Indicators of Performance Management (IPM) 3 0.785 Profit Margin (PMA) 4 0.811 Customer Satisfaction (CS) Low Wastage (LW) Source: Compiled by the author. 198

6.2.1 Workplace Environment (WE) The descriptive statistics revealed in the table 6.4 showcases the means, standard deviations (SD) and Pearson correlation coefficients of the relationships between independent variables and the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Performance Management System). The results of the calculated mean reflect the most contributing variable towards PMS is ‘jobs are standardized so that individuals are experiencing low stress’ (V4) as its value is 3.93 which is higher than other variables in this construct. Most of the respondents identified workplace environments (WE) as an important measure of PMS as the mean scores of all items under this construct are above 3.0. The value of standard deviation is less than 1 in most of the variables except V6. The value of Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) indicates the strength and direction of a relationship between the two variables in a study. The independent variables (V1 to V6) have a strong and positive correlation with the dependent variable (PMS) at a significance of .01 level. The regression analysis is a statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables, where the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. The table 6.5 gives the value of the coefficient of determination (R2), which is the proportion of variance of the dependent variable (PMS), explained by the independent variables. In this construct (WE), the value of R2 is 0.663, which implies that 66 % of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variables. Adjusted R2 is modified measure and it indicates the fitness of the model, its value should ideally be equal to or near the value of R2. In this model, the value of adjusted R2 is 0.643, which is close to the value of R2 (0.663), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.084 is good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model. The value of F is 111.23 is significant (p < 0.001), which makes the model statistically significant. The regression coefficient table showcases a range of unstandardized and standardized beta coefficients. The standardized coefficients refer to how many standard deviations a dependent variable will change when the standard deviation increases for each independent variable, as all the independent variables have been standardized so that their variance are 1 (Hair et al., 2010). In the table 6.5, the results depict that all the variables are significant at p<.001. The highest beta coefficient of the variable ‘jobs are standardized so that individuals are experiencing low stress’ (V4) is 0.352 with a significance 199

of 0.000. The beta values of all the variables are positive, which indicates that the direction of the influence by all the predictors is positive. The t-statistics indicates a measure of the precision with which the regression coefficient is measured. The highest t- value in this table is for V1 followed by V2, and V3. The collinearity statistics indicating the values of tolerance and VIF are in their acceptable level, which indicates that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. Table 6.4: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (WE) Mean S. D. PMS V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 1 PMS 3.75 .916 1 V1 3.21 .951 .664** 1 V2 3.55 .976 .675** .153** 1 V3 3.65 .884 .764** .257** .218** 1 V4 3.93 .912 .792** .159** .186** .272** 1 V5 3.85 .890 .773** .283** .342** .250** .383** 1 V6 3.82 1.12 .665** .302** .222* .263** .326** .229** ** Significant at .01 level, * Significant at .05 level. Source: Compiled by the author. Table 6.5: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (WE) Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity Statistics Coefficients Coefficients -.396 .000 (Constant) Beta 12.370 .000 Tolerance VIF V1 B Std. Error 7.091 .000 V2 .076 .193 3.233 .000 .493 2.030 V3 2 .116 .000 .526 1.901 V4 .236 .032 .164 1.543 .000 .618 1.619 V5 2.220 .000 .675 1.481 V6 .212 .041 .152 .859 1.164 .788 1.269 .216 .042 .158 .352 .036 .183 .126 .034 .096 .197 .031 .124 R = .768, R2 = .663, Adjusted R2 = .643; Std. Error of Estimate = .084, F = 111.23, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: PMS; Independent variables: (Constant), V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6 Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2.2 Employee Competency (EC) Table 6.6 illustrated the results of the calculated mean of contributing variables towards PMS and the mean score for the variable ‘competencies enable employees to become more proactive beyond their individual roles and responsibilities’ (V13) 4.22 which is higher than other variables in this construct. The values of standard deviation are slightly greater than .80 in most of the variables except for V13, which is 0.713. The Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) reveals that all the independent variables in the 200

construct are positively correlated with the dependent variable PMS at a significance of .01 level. The independent variables (V8, V9, V12, and V13) have better correlation with the dependent variable PMS as compared to the other independent variables at a significance of .01 level. The value of R2 = 0.873, which implies that 87.3 % of the variance in the predicted variable is explained by the predictor variables. In this model the value of adjusted R2 is 0.871, which is close to the value of R2 (0.873), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.543 is good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model. The value of F is 87.543 is significant at (p < 0.001), which makes the model more valid and significant. In the table 6.7, the figures reflected that all the variables are significant in this study with an alpha value of 0.01. The highest beta coefficient for the variable V8 is 0.624 with a significance of 0.000. The beta values of all the variables are positive which indicates that the direction of the influence for all the predictors is positive. The highest t- value in the table is for V8 followed by V12, V9 and V13. This table also reflects the values of tolerance and VIF are in their acceptable levels, which indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. Table 6.6: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (EC) Mean S. D. PMS V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 PMS 3.87 .835 1 1 .267** V8 3.91 .803 .764** 1 .232** .231** V9 3.96 .926 .626** .248** .121* V10 3.93 .845 .144** .135** 1 .184** V11 4.13 .876 .571** .270** .128** 1 .194** .215** V12 3.98 .869 .729** .135** .165** 1 .245** V13 4.22 .713 .786** .137* 1 ** Significant at .01 level, * Significant at .05 level. Source: Compiled by the author. Table 6.7: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (EC) Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Coefficients t Sig. Tolerance VIF Beta (Constant) .080 .219 .365 .000 V8 .624 .049 .044 8.653 .000 .754 1.326 V9 .265 .053 .172 3.154 .000 .664 1.505 V11 .342 .038 .143 2.236 .000 .638 1.567 V12 .237 .042 .133 3.184 .000 .909 1.100 V13 .251 .025 .169 2.863 .000 .772 1.295 R = .816, R2 = .873, Adjusted R2 = .871; Std. Error of Estimate = .543, F = 87.543, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: PMS; Independent variables: (Constant), V8, V9, V11, V13, V14; Excluded Items: V10 Source: Compiled by the author. 201

6.2.3 Performance Standards and Expectations (PSE) In order to make the performance management system of an organization highly success, emphasis on performance standards and expectations is essential for proper value addition by the employees. Table 6.8 illustrates the results of the calculated mean that is most contributing variable towards PMS is ‘performance standards enable employees to achieve the best results’ (V17) as its value is 3.95 which higher than other variables in this construct. Most of the respondents identified that focus on performance standards and expectations will enhance the level of individual performance outcome as all of the mean scores are above 3.5. The values of standard deviation are in between 0.864 to 1.130, but in case of the variables V15, V19, and V20 the values are greater than 1. The independent variables (V15, V17 and V18) have better correlation with the dependent variable PMS as compared to the other independent variables at a significance of .01 levels. As the value of R2 is 0.615, which implies that 61.5 % of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variables. In this model the value of adjusted R2 is 0.610, which is close to the value of R2 (0.615), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.651 is good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model. The value of F is 79.321 (p < 0.001), which makes the regression model significant. The results from the table 6.9 depicts that all the variables entered in the regression model are significant in this study with an alpha value of 0.01. The highest beta coefficient for the variable (V17) is 0.363 with a significance of 0.000. The beta values of all the variables are positive which indicates that the direction of the influence for all the predictors is positive. The highest t-value in the table is for V17 followed by V18 and V15 while the values of tolerance and VIF are in their acceptable levels, which indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. Table 6.8: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (PSE) V21 V22 1 Mean S. D. PMS V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 1 PMS 3.55 1.021 1 .296** V15 3.60 1.076 .701** 1 V16 3.66 0.892 .257** .318** 1 V17 3.95 0.991 .759** .286** .376** 1 V18 3.82 0.893 .783** .242** .250** .283* 1 V19 3.76 1.130 .680** .194** .194** .296** .259** 1 V20 3.52 1.123 .558** .152** .207** .180** .231** .163** 1 V21 3.83 0.864 .207** .233* .202** .331** .245** .214** .201** V22 3.72 0.880 .646** .144** .125** .105* .237** .221* .249** ** Significant at .01 level, * Significant at .05 level. Source: Compiled by the author. 202

Table 6.9: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (PSE) Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity Statistics Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF (Constant) .310 .499 .310 .000 V15 .191 .035 .106 5.219 .000 .491 2.032 V17 .363 .062 .202 7.632 .000 .463 2.161 V18 .253 .028 .227 6.421 .000 .753 1.319 V19 .189 .025 .108 3.102 .000 .889 1.125 V20 .191 .061 .101 3.014 .000 .591 1.693 V22 .314 .064 .114 3.324 .000 .537 1.861 R = .783, R2 = .615, Adjusted R2 = .610; Std. Error of Estimate = .651, F = 79.321, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: PMS; Independent variables: (Constant), V15, V17, V18, V19, V20, V22; Excluded Items: V16, V21 Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2.4 Performance Appraisal (PA) Table 6.10 illustrates the results of the calculated mean that is most contributing variable towards the dependent variable (PMS) is ‘performance appraisal maintains and assesses the potential present in a person for further growth and development’ (V26) as its value is 3.92, which is higher than other variables in the construct. Most of the respondents have identified that performance appraisal measures are contributing towards organizational performance management system, as all of the mean scores are above 3.5 except for the variables V25 and V29. The values of standard deviation are less than 1 in most of the variables except for (V29) which is slightly greater than 1. All the independent variables have better correlation with the dependent variable (PMS) as the values are greater than .50 at a significance of .01 level except in case of V25 and V29. From the table 6.11, it is quite visible that 62.2 % of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variables as R2 = 0.612. In this model the value of adjusted R2 is 0.617, which is close to the value of R2 (0.622), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.073 is good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model. The value of F is 59.724 and is significant (p < 0.001), which makes the model quite acceptable. The highest beta coefficient for the variable V26 is 0.304 with a significance of 0.000, and the beta values of all the variables are positive. The highest t- value in the table is for V24 followed by V26 and V27. Moreover, the values of tolerance and VIF are in their acceptable levels, which indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. 203

Table 6.10: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (PA) Mean S. D. PMS V24 V25 V26 V27 V28 V29 PMS 3.71 0.975 1 1 1 V24 3.87 0.964 1 1 1 .602** .192** .204** .422** .272** .301** V25 2.79 0.980 .343** .496** 1 .453** V26 3.92 0.847 .650** .144** .242** V27 3.81 0.924 .616** .244** .234** V28 3.76 0.929 .565** .122** .145** V29 2.72 1.030 .371** .321** .369* ** Significant at .01 level, * Significant at .05 level. Source: Compiled by the author. Table 6.11: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (PA) Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Coefficients t Sig. Tolerance VIF Beta (Constant) -.093 .177 .523 .000 V24 .272 .042 .072 6.505 .000 .453 2.194 V26 .304 .046 .096 4.570 .000 .670 1.493 V27 .149 .048 .196 2.150 .000 .558 1.792 V28 .069 .045 .159 1.527 .000 .431 2.320 R = .763, R2 = .622, Adjusted R2 = .617; Std. Error of Estimate = .073, F = 59.724, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: PMS; Independent variables: (Constant), V24, V26, V27, V28; Excluded Item: V25, V29 Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2.5 Employee Training (ET) The most contributing variable that has influenced the predicted variable (PMS) is ‘emphasis on training has improved the efficiency and productivity of employees’ (V33) as the mean is 3.86 which is higher than other variables of the construct employee training (table 6.12). Most of the respondents agreed that emphasis on employee training is an important factor contributing towards a better performance management system of the organization as most of the mean scores are above 3.5 except in case of V34 and V35. The values of the standard deviations are less than 1 which explains the opinions of individuals are close to the mean. The independent variables have a better correlation with the dependent variable (PMS) at a significance of .01 level. The table 6.13 depicts the value of R2 (0.629), which implies that 63 % of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variables. In this model the value of adjusted R2 is 0.623, which is close to the value of R2 (0.629), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.426 and the value of F (63.178, p < 0.001) are good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model. 204

In the table 6.13, the results depict that all the variables of this construct, except V34 and V35 (not included in the regression model) are significant with p values less than 0.01. The variable V31 has highest beta coefficient value (0.358) with a significance of 0.000. The beta values of all the variables are positive, which indicates that the direction of the influence for all the predictors is positive. The highest t-value in the table is for V31 followed by V32 and V33, and the values of tolerance and VIF indicates the absence of the multicollinearity problem in this construct. Table 6.12: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (ET) Mean S. D. PMS V31 V32 V33 V34 V35 V36 V37 1 PMS 3.82 .879 1 V31 3.71 .858 .564** 1 V32 3.75 .983 .650** .201** 1 V33 3.86 .891 .764** .157** .218** 1 V34 2.72 .991 .521** .159* .386** .476** 1 V35 2.76 .893 .513** .283** .342** .350** .383** 1 V36 3.68 .889 .573** .235** .267** .238* .236** .289** 1 V37 3.62 .847 .521** .324** .264** .216** .225* .264* .178** ** Significant at .01 level, * Significant at .05 level. Source: Compiled by the author. Table 6.13: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (ET) Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Coefficients t Sig. Tolerance VIF Beta (Constant) .240 .153 1.212 .000 V31 .358 .041 .123 5.419 .000 .598 1.684 V32 .168 .049 .166 4.123 .000 .415 2.438 V33 .272 .043 .159 2.452 .000 .463 2.168 V36 .164 .047 .146 1.609 .000 .443 2.254 V37 .144 .053 .138 1.144 .000 .762 1.316 R = .736, R2 = .629, Adjusted R2 = .623, Std. Error of Estimate = .426, F = 63.178, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: PMS; Independent variables: (Constant), V31, V32, V33, V36, V37; Excluded Items: V34, V35 Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2.6 Post Appraisal Measures (PAM) Organizational emphasis on post appraisal measures is an important aspect of the existing performance management system. The table 6.14 illustrates the results of the calculated mean and the most contributing variable towards PMS is ‘post appraisal measures help in mental boosting of employees in order to avoid frustration’ (V42) as the value is 3.93, which is higher than other variables of this construct. Most of the respondents opined that post appraisal measures have significant on performance enhancement of the employees as the mean scores of the variables under this construct is above 3.5 except in 205

case of V39, V40, and V46. The values of standard deviation are less than 1 for all variables. The independent variables have better correlation with the dependent variable (PMS) at a significance of .01 level. The value of R2 = 0.643, which implies that 64.3% of variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variables. In this model, the value of adjusted R2 is 0. 639, which is close to the value of R2 (0.643), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.367 is good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model. The model is significant as the value of F is 84.237 (p < 0.001). The highest beta coefficient for the variable ‘post appraisal measures focus on regular feedback towards the development of employees’ (V41) is 0.346, with a significance of 0.000 (table 6.15). The beta values of all the variables are positive, which indicates that the direction of the influence for all the predictors is positive. The highest t-value in the table is for V41 followed by V42, V43, and V44. The collinearity statistics from the table shows that the values of tolerance and VIF are in their acceptable levels, which indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. Table 6.14: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (PAM) Mean S. D. PMS V39 V40 V41 V42 V43 V44 V45 V46 1 PMS 3.65 .910 1 V39 2.58 .851 .561** 1 V40 273 .886 .550** .201** 1 .118** V41 3.78 .894 .564** .257** .286** 1 .142** .376** V42 3.93 .995 .694** .159** .222** .250** 1 .203* .268** .183** V43 3.86 .890 .673** .283** .207** .244** .126** 1 .206** .105** .229** 1 V44 3.72 .876 .663** .107** .319** .187** .165** .304** .325** V45 3.63 .862 .627** .269** 1 .328** V46 2.62 .867 .578** .185** ** Significant at .01 level. Source: Compiled by the author. Table 6.15: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (PAM) Model Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity Statistics Coefficients Coefficients Sig. Tolerance VIF B Std. Error Beta t (Constant) .025 .231 .127 .000 V41 .346 .045 .139 7.352 .000 .503 1.986 V42 .191 .049 .087 4.975 .000 .428 2.336 V43 .113 .050 .183 3.634 .008 .485 2.061 V44 .174 .047 .057 3.621 .000 .672 1.488 V45 .140 .040 .032 2.346 .000 .466 2.145 R = .727, R2 = .643, Adjusted R2 = .639; Std. Error of Estimate = .367, F = 84. 237, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: PMS; Independent variables: (Constant), V41, V42, V43, V44, V45; Excluded Items: V39, 40, V46 Source: Compiled by the author. 206

6.2.7 Facilitators of Performance Management (FPM) From the table 6.16 it is observed that the results of the calculated mean that is most contributing variable towards the dependent variable organizational success (PMS) is ‘organizational culture promotes equality by ensuring no employee is neglected at the workplace and that each one is treated equally (V51) as its value is 3.92 and higher than other variables in this construct. The values of the standard deviations are very close to 1. The independent variables have a better correlation with the dependent variable (PMS) at a significance of .01 levels. The model summary and ANOVA shown in the table 6.17, illustrates the value of R2 = 0.634, which implies that 63.4 % of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variables. In this model the value of adjusted R2 is 0.629, which is close to the value of R2 (0.634), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.164 is good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model. The value of F is 33.625 (p < 0.001), which makes the model significant. In the table 6.17, the results depict that all variables are significant in this study with an alpha value less than 0.01. The variable (V49) has the highest beta coefficient value (0.189) with a significance of 0.000. The beta values of all the variables are positive which indicates that the direction of the influence for all the predictors is positive. The highest t-value in the table is for V48 followed by V49, and V54. The values of tolerance and VIF are in their acceptable levels, which indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. Table 6.16: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (FPM) Mean S. D. PMS V48 V49 V50 V51 V52 V53 V54 3.86 .867 1 1 1 PMS 3.82 .912 V48 .597** V49 3.78 .815 .639** .229** 1 V50 2.62 .980 .292** .250** .236** 1 V51 3.92 .932 .540** .180** .136** .139** 1 V52 3.89 .886 .613** .273** .219* .349** .106** 1 V53 2.54 .923 .578** .303** .208** .204* .283* .208* 1 V54 3.87 .831 .318** .348** .270** .380** .337** .307** .386** ** Significant at .01 level, * Significant at .05 level. Source: Compiled by the author. 207

Table 6.17: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (FPM) Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Coefficients t Sig. Tolerance VIF Beta (Constant) .207 .180 1.150 .000 V48 .135 .047 .112 9.316 .000 .479 2.277 V49 .189 .046 .086 8.815 .000 .586 1.706 V51 .148 .051 .112 2.887 .000 .495 2.020 V52 .120 .046 .118 1.440 .000 .462 2.164 V54 .131 .038 .110 6.092 .000 .757 1.321 R = .790, R2 = .634, Adjusted R2 = .629, Std. Error of Estimate = .164, F = 33.625, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: PMS; Independent variables: (Constant), V48, V49, V51, V52, V54; Excluded Items: V50, V53 Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2.8 Indicators of Performance Management System (IPMS) The variables under the construct IPMS as given in the table 6.18, which illustrates the values of the calculated mean above 3.5. 1. The variable having highest mean score is ‘rate of absenteeism is very low as individual employee becomes responsible corporate citizen’ (V58) as its value is 3.82. The values of the standard deviations are closer to 1 in the case of all variables. The correlations among the independent variables are very low as the correlation coefficients are less than 0.280. Table 6.18: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients (IPMS) Mean S. D. V56 V57 V58 V59 V60 1 V56 3.69 0.911 1 .129** V57 3.60 0.923 .250** 1 .280** .236** V58 3.82 0.810 .173** .136** 1 .119** .239** V59 3.52 0.932 .149** 1 .106** V60 3.56 0.886 ** Significant at .01 level Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2.9 Profit Margin (PMA) The table 6.19 shows the value of R2 (0.628), which implies that 62.6 % of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variables. In this model the value of adjusted R2 is 0.619, which is close to the value of R2 (0.626), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.064 is good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model and the value of F is 42.342 (p < 0.001) confirms the model is significant. The result from the table 6.19 shows that all the variables are significant in this study with an alpha value of less than 0.01. The highest value of the 208

beta coefficient is 0.450 for the variable V57 with a significance of 0.000. The beta values of all the variables are positive which indicates that the direction of the influence for all the predictors is positive. The variable (V56) is having highest t-value, followed by V57, and V60, whereas the collinearity statistics (tolerance and VIF) are in their acceptable levels, which indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. Table 6.19: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (PMA) Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Coefficients t Sig. Tolerance VIF Beta (Constant) .207 .180 1.150 .000 V56 .135 .147 .112 9.316 .000 .479 2.277 V57 .189 .132 .086 8.815 .000 .586 1.706 V58 .148 .051 .112 2.887 .000 .495 2.020 V59 .131 .038 .110 1.092 .000 .757 1.321 V60 .150 .112 .102 7.736 .000 .474 2.109 R = .764, R2 = .626, Adjusted R2 = .619, Std. Error of Estimate = .064, F = 42.342, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: PMA; Independent variables: (Constant), V56, V57, V58, V59, V60 Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2.10 Customer Satisfaction (CS) The model summary and ANOVA shown in the table 6.20, illustrates the value of R2 = 0.632, which implies that 63.2 % of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the predictor variables. In this model the value of adjusted R2 is 0.628, which is close to the value of R2 (0.632), thus indicating the fitness of the model. A small standard error of 0.364 is good enough to imply reliable prediction of the model. The value of F is 31.325 (p < 0.001), which makes the model significant. In the table 6.20, the results depict that all variables are significant in this study with an alpha value less than 0.01. The variable (V56) has the highest beta coefficient value (0.234) with a significance of 0.000. The beta values of all the variables are positive which indicates that the direction of the influence for all the predictors is positive. The highest t-value in the table is for V56 followed by V57, and V58. The values of tolerance and VIF are in their acceptable levels, which indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. 209

Table 6.20: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (CS) Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig. Collinearity Statistics (Constant) B Std. Error Coefficients 1.150 .000 Tolerance VIF Beta .217 .180 V56 .234 .047 .112 6.246 .000 .479 2.277 V57 .176 .046 .086 4.532 .000 .586 1.706 V58 .145 .051 .112 2.887 .000 .495 2.020 V59 .123 .046 .118 1.440 .000 .462 2.164 V60 .131 .038 .110 1.164 .000 .757 1.321 R = .728, R2 = .632, Adjusted R2 = .628, Std. Error of Estimate = .364, F = 31.325, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: CS; Independent variables: (Constant), V56, V57, V58, V59, V60 Source: Compiled by the author. 6.2.11 Low Wastage (LW) Multiple regression analysis was conducted to measure the impact of performance management system on low wastage as an outcome of organizational performance. The model summary shown in table 6.21 provides the value of R2 as .658, which implies that the parameters of PMS explain 65.8% observed variability in wastage reduction. The adjusted R2 is a modified measure and has a value of .651 (close to the value of R2), thus indicating the generalizability of the model. The F value (F = 47.873, p <.001) highlights that the variance explained by the predictor items are highly significant. The regression coefficients reveal that all the variables are significant predictors of wastage reduction. The highest beta coefficient is of the item V58 (.169), which depicts that it has the strongest influence on minimization of wastage. The t-value is the measures of whether the predictor is making a significant contribution to the model. All the t-values associated with the beta coefficients are significant which explains the substantial impact of performance management system on minimization of wastage. The values of tolerance and VIF are in their acceptable levels, which indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem in this construct. Table 6.21: β Coefficients, Collinearity Statistics and Model Summary (LW) Model Unstandardised Standardized t Collinearity Statistics Coefficients Coefficients Sig. B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF (Constant) .197 .051 3.869 .000 V56 .131 .016 .208 8.413 .000 .457 2.189 V57 .108 .018 .164 6.166 .000 .395 2.535 V58 .169 .016 .249 10.297 .000 .475 2.104 V59 .165 .014 .279 12.137 .000 .525 1.904 V60 .167 .012 .292 13.389 .000 .585 1.710 R = .826, R2 = .658, Adjusted R2 = .651, Std. Error of Estimate = .272, F = 47.873, Sig. = .000 Dependent variable: LW; Independent variables: (Constant), V56, V57, V58, V59, V60 Source: Compiled by the author. 210

6.2.12 Indicators of Organizational Performance The descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients are reflected in the tables 6.22, 6.23, and 6.24 for the items under the construct profit margin, customer satisfaction, and low wastage. The results pointed out that each of the indicators of organizational performance outcomes is positively and significantly correlated to each other and the values of correlation coefficients are less than .3 which confirms the degree of independence of each outcome variable. The values of coefficient of variation are less than 20 %, which again supports the validity of the responses of the respondents relating to these indicators. Table 6.22: Indicators of Profit Margin Variables Mean S. D Correlations CV (%) V62 V63 19.48 V61 Enhancement of the profit 4.07 .793 1 19.79 margin of by recruiting the best talents, reducing 18.93 absenteeism, identifying and meeting the training needs of CV (%) existing staff (V61). 19.73 19.97 Enhancement of profit margin 3.98 .788 .234** 1 by ensuring employee 19.83 welfare, positive employee relationship and safe working environment of employees (V62). Reduction of expenditure by 3.86 .731 .189** .217** 1 implementing cost effective Correlations V65 V66 benefit programmes (V63). **p<0.01, C.V: Coefficient of Variation Source: Compiled by the author. Table 6.23: Indicators of Customer Satisfaction Variables Mean S. D V64 Immense importance in 4.21 .831 1 providing motivation to the employees and at the same time, to increase the level of consumer satisfaction (V64). Most effective and efficient 3.96 .791 .137** 1 ways of increasing consumer satisfaction in performance management system, is to ensure employee satisfaction (V65). Customer-focused goals and 4.37 .867 .169** .254** 1 standards is an important component of performance management system (V66). **p<0.01, C.V: Coefficient of Variation Source: Compiled by the author. 211

Table 6.24: Indicators of Low Wastage Variables Mean S. D Correlations CV (%) V67 V68 19.28 Waste management is very 4.18 .806 1 V69 V70 19.54 important for a company’s 1 19.82 .238** 1 profitability (V67). 19.97 Reduction in waste can help 4.21 .823 .263** 1 the company to reduce its cost (V68). Environmental management 4.09 .811 .271** .254** system, workforce education and training, and incentive and reward mechanism can help an organization to the wastage of the resources (V69). Top management pays more 4.15 .829 .281** .259** attention on waste management as one of the key indicators of performance management and corporate profitability (V70). **p<0.01, C.V: Coefficient of Variation Source: Compiled by the author. 6.3 Major Findings The proactive measures taken by the management of RSP towards effective performance management system has enhanced organizational performance outcome (profit margin, customer satisfaction, and low wastage) to become more promising organization in the competitive business environment. After a detailed and in depth analysis of primary data, the important findings of the study have been reflected as: Hypothesis 1 was proposed to examine the impact of workplace environment on individual performance through six predictors. It is revealed that all the predictors have positively influenced the dependent variable (PMS). The independent variables which are influencing the dependent variable are:  Workplace environment is free from dust and noise  Work premises are cleaned regularly  Adequate level of lighting and ventilation in the work premises  Jobs are standardized so that individuals are experiencing low stress  Perception of individuals as a pleasant and safe workplace  Superiors are very cordial and caring Derived Model 1: PMS1 = .076+.236 (V1) + .212(V2) + .216 (V3) + .352 (V4) + .126 (V5) + .197 (V7) + e 212

Hypothesis 2 endeavours to find whether the organization has given emphasis on employee training for better employee performance. It has been seen that the following predictor variables were influencing the dependent variable (PMS) significantly:  Emphasis on desired skills, knowledge, abilities, and attitude towards goal attainment  Performance expectations set for individuals on the basis of individual competencies  Competent employees will experience a high degree of engagement and motivation  Employee competencies outline employee development and promotional paths within the organization  Competencies enable employees to become more proactive beyond their individual roles and responsibilities The following variable was found insignificantly related to the dependent variable.  Employee competencies are used to lay out an organization’s performance outcome Derived Model 2: PMS2 = .080+.624 (V8) + .265 (V9) + .342 (V11) + .237 (V12) + .251 (V13) + e It was hypothesized that clearly defined performance standards and expectations for the employees will have a positive impact on individual performance (hypothesis 3). But, the analysis of data has reflected that the following predictors were influencing the dependent variable:  Performance standards are objective, measurable, realistic, and stated clearly in writing  Performance standards enable employees to achieve the best results  Performance standards enable employees to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable results  Performance standards increase job satisfaction, because employees know when tasks are performed well  Performance standards inform new employees about organizational expectations and job performance  Superiors and subordinates have jointly defined the performance standard and expectation relating to the assigned job The following variables were found insignificantly related to the dependent variable:  Performance expectations are the basis for appraising employee performance 213

 Performance standards encourage an open and trusting relationship with employees Derived Model 3: PMS3 = .310+.191 (V15) + .363 (V17) + .253 (V18) + .189 (V19) + .191 (V20) + .314 (V22) + e The statistical interpretation of the predictor and predicted variables has supported the argument that performance appraisal of employees has played a vital role towards successful performance management system (hypothesis 4). Some of the independent variables have a significant impact on the dependent variable and such variables were:  Performance appraisal is the foundation for determination of adequate compensation and appropriate reward system  Performance appraisal maintains and assesses the potential present in a person for further growth and development  Performance appraisal provides a feedback to employees regarding their performance and related status  Performance appraisal serves as a basis for influencing working habits of the employees It has been found that two predictor variables (V25, V29) are not entered into the derived regression model.  Performance appraisal identifies the strengths and weaknesses of employees to place right men on right job  Performance appraisal is an ongoing activity for maximum exploitation of individual resources Derived Model 4: PMS4 = .093+.272 (V24) + .304 (V26) + .149 (V27) + .069 (V28) + e As it is professed in hypothesis 5 that emphasis on employee training has a significant impact on individual performance and the empirical analysis revealed that all predictors except V34 and V35 have influenced the predicted variable positively.  Employees’ training is an essential driver of an organization’s success  Workers are properly educated about the effective use of technology through training  Emphasis on training has improved the efficiency and productivity of employees  Employee’s training ensures a competitive edge in the market  Training programmes create opportunities for career development and personal growth, an important factor in retaining workers 214

The following variables were found insignificantly related to the dependent variable:  Both in-house and out-house training programmes are regularly conducted by the organization  Organization’s own training centre is well structured along with all necessary facilities Derived Model 5: PMS5 = .240 +.358 (V31) + .168 (V32) + .272 (V33) + .164 (V36) + .144 (V37) + e The conviction that was claimed in hypothesis 6 is to test whether the action taken towards post appraisal measures has a significant impact on performance management system. After analysis the result has indicated that all the predictor variables except V39, V40 and V46 were positively influenced the predicted variable and these are:  Post appraisal measures focus on regular feedback towards the development of employees  Post appraisal measures help in mental boosting of employees in order to avoid frustration  Post appraisal measures emphasize on open discussion in between superiors and subordinates  Post appraisal measures help in identification of developmental means for enhancement of employee performance  Post appraisal measures used to access employees’ weakness, identifying areas, which may require additional training and support It has been observed that some predictor variables are not entered into the derived regression model and these are:  Post appraisal measures help management in deciding about the promotions, transfers and rewards of the employee  Post appraisal measures help the appraiser for offering suggestions, guiding, coaching and counseling the individual employees for their advancement  Post appraisal measures are the tool for motivating employees towards higher performance Derived Model 6: PMS6 = .025 +.346 (V41) + .191 (V42) + .113 (V43) + .174 (V44) + .140 (V45) + e 215

Hypothesis 7 endeavours to find out the impact of facilitators of performance management on performance management system of the organization and the following independent variables were found as the predictors of the dependent variable and these are:  Mission and vision inspire employees to achieve high performance ratings, regardless of whether the company is in the business of making a profit or not  Organizational goals drive department goals, which help managers and employees to establish job and career objectives  Organizational culture promotes equality by ensuring no employee is neglected at the workplace and that each one is treated equally  Organizational development helps in developing confidence, transparency and autonomy within teams and individuals  Organizational development establishes strategies to improve processes and develop the skills required within the framework of the business objective The following variables were found insignificantly related to the dependent variable:  Organizational goal helps to motivate the employees and work groups as they work towards larger aims  Recognition and reward system of an organization increases motivation, improves morale, and employee loyalty to the organization Derived Model 7: PMS7 = .207 +.135 (V48) + .189 (V49) + .148 (V51) + .120 (V52) + .131 (V54) + e As inferred in hypotheses (8, 9, and 10), indicators of performance management system have a positive and significant relationship with the dependent variables (profit margin, customer satisfaction, and low wastage. It was found that all the five predictors have influenced the dependent variables and such variables were: Derived Model 8: PMA = .207 +.135 (V56) + .189 (V57) + .148 (V58) + .131 (V59) + .150 (V60) + e Derived Model 9: CS = .217 +.234 (V56) + .176 (V57) + .145 (V58) + .123 (V59) + .131 (V60) + e Derived Model 10: CS = .197 +.131 (V56) + .108 (V57) + .169 (V58) + .165 (V59) + .167 (V60) + e 216

The significant predictors which are influencing their respective dependent variables are enlisted in table 6.25. Table 6.25 Predictors and Non Predictors of Dependent Variable Hypotheses Dependent Predictors Non Predictors H1 Variable (IVs are influencing DV) (IVs are not influencing DV) (DV) PMS WE (V1, V2, V3, V4, V6) - EC (V10) H2 PMS EC (V8, V9, V11, V12, V13) PSE(V16, V21) PA (V25, V29) H3 PMS PSE (V15, V17, V18, V19, V20, V22) ET (V34, V35) PAM (V39, V40, V46) H4 PMS PA (V24, V26, V27, V28) FPM (V50, V53) - H5 PMS ET (V31, V32, V33, V36, V37) - - H6 PMS PAM (V41, V42, V43, V44, V45) H7 PMS FPM (V48, V49, V51, V52, V54) H8, PMA IPMS (V56, V57, V58, V59, V60) H9 CS IPMS (V56, V57, V58, V59, V60) H10 LW IPMS (V56, V57, V58, V59, V60) Source: Compiled by the author. From the above findings of the regression models, it can be said that the predictor variables relating to the major focus areas such as measures of performance management, facilitators of performance management system, and indicators of performance management system have significantly influencing their respective predicted variables (table 6.26). Moreover, all the proposed hypotheses were tested and found to be valid, which reveals that strategic measures on all the focused areas mentioned above significantly influence the organizational performance management system. The present study explored and analyzed the specific measures relating to performance management system experienced by Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP) in the present competitive environment through an in-depth empirical study based on primary data, which yields some valuable knowledge on key drivers of performance management, facilitators of performance management, indicators of performance management system, and the outcomes of these such as profit margin, customer satisfaction, and low wastage. More importantly, the gaps identified during the literature review were addressed in this empirical study. A model has been derived based on the hypothesized issues which find it is essential for the organization to come up with the initiatives towards workplace environment, employee competency, performance standards and expectations, performance appraisal, employee training, and post appraisal measures for a value based 217

performance management system. Thus, emphasis on proactive and strategic performance management measures when implemented in the true sense will help the organization to become more competitive and market leader through continuous achievement of the desired objectives. Table 6.26 Validation of Hypotheses Hypotheses Constructs R2 Value F Value Validation Accepted H1 WE .663 111.23 Accepted (p <.000) Accepted H2 EC .873 Accepted 87.543 Accepted H3 PSE .615 (p <.000) Accepted Accepted H4 PA .622 79.321 Accepted (p <.000) Accepted H5 ET .629 Accepted 59.724 H6 PAM .643 (p <.000) H7 FPM .634 63.178 (p <.000) H8 PMA .626 84.237 H9 CS .632 (p<.000) H10 LW .658 33.625 Source: Compiled by the author. (p <.000) 42.342 (p <.000) 31.325 (p <.000) 47.873 (P <.000) 218

Appendix – I: Dependent and Independent Variables Hypotheses Dependent Independent Variable H1 Variable Performance Workplace Environment (WE) Workplace environment is free from dust and noise (V1) Management Work premises are cleaned regularly (V2) Adequate level of lighting and ventilation in the work premises System (PMS) (V3) Jobs are standardized so that individuals are experiencing low H2 Performance stress (V4) Management Perception of individuals as a pleasant and safe workplace (V5) System (PMS) Superiors are very cordial and caring (V6) Employee Competency (EC) H3 Performance Emphasis on desired skills, knowledge, abilities, and attitude Management towards goal attainment (V8) System (PMS) Performance expectations set for individuals on the basis of individual competencies (V9) Employee competencies are used to lay out an organization’s performance outcome (V10) Competent employees will experience a high degree of engagement and motivation (V11) Employee competencies outline employee development and promotional paths within the organization (V12) Competencies enable employees to become more proactive beyond their individual roles and responsibilities (V13) Performance Standards and Expectations (PSE) Performance standards are objective, measurable, realistic, and stated clearly in writing (V15) Performance expectations are the basis for appraising employee performance (V16) Performance standards enable employees to achieve the best results (V17) Performance standards enable employees to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable results (V18) Performance standards increase job satisfaction, because employees know when tasks are performed well (V19) Performance standards inform new employees about organizational expectations and job performance (V20) Performance standards encourage an open and trusting relationship with employees (V21) Superiors and subordinates have jointly defined the performance standard and expectation relating to the assigned job (V22) 219

H4 Performance Performance Appraisal (PA) Management Performance appraisal is the foundation for determination of System (PMS) adequate compensation and appropriate reward system (V24) Performance appraisal identifies the strengths and weaknesses of employees to place right men on right job (V25) Performance appraisal maintains and assesses the potential present in a person for further growth and development (V26) Performance appraisal provides a feedback to employees regarding their performance and related status (V27) Performance appraisal serves as a basis for influencing working habits of the employees (V28) Performance appraisal is an ongoing activity for maximum exploitation of individual resources (V29) H5 Performance Employee Training (ET) Management Employees’ training is an essential driver of an organization’s System (PMS) success (V31) Through training programme the workers are properly educated about the effective use of technology (V32) Emphasis on training has improved the efficiency and productivity of employees (V33) Both in-house and out-house training programmes are regularly conducted by the organization (V34) Organization’s own training centre is well structured along with all necessary facilities (V35) Employee’s training ensures competitive edge in the market (V36) Training programmes creates opportunities for career development and personal growth, an important factor in retaining workers (V37) H6 Performance Post Appraisal Measures (PAM) Management Post appraisal measures help management in deciding about System (PMS)) the promotions, transfers and rewards of the employee (V39) Post appraisal measures helps appraiser for offering suggestions, guiding, coaching and counseling the individual employees for their advancement (V40) Post appraisal measures focus on regular feedback towards the development of employees (V41) Post appraisal measures helps in mental boosting of employees in order to avoid frustration (V42) Post appraisal measures emphasize on open discussion in between superiors and subordinates (V43) Post appraisal measures helps in identification of developmental means for enhancement of employee performance (V44) Post appraisal measures used to access employees’ weakness, identifying areas, which may require additional training and support (V45) Post appraisal measures are the tool for motivating employees towards higher performance (V46) 220

H7 Performance Facilitators of Performance Management (FPM) Management Mission and vision inspire employees to achieve high System (PMS) performance ratings, regardless of whether the company is in the business of making a profit or not (V48) Organizational goals drive department goals, which help managers and employees to establish job and career objectives (V49) Organizational goal help to motivate the employees and work groups as they work towards larger aims (V50) Organizational culture promotes equality by ensuring no employee is neglected at the workplace and that each one is treated equally (V51) Organizational development helps in developing confidence, transparency and autonomy within teams and individuals (V52) Organizational development establishes strategies to improve processes and develop the skills required within the framework of the business’s current activities (V53) Recognition and reward system of an organization increases motivation, improves morale, and employee loyalty to the organization (V54) H8 Profit Margin Indicators of Performance Management (IPM) (PMA) Enhancement of skill sets of the employees (V56) H9 Customer Rate of employee turnover is very low (V57) Satisfaction Rate of absenteeism is very low as individual employee (CS) becomes responsible corporate citizen (V58) H10 Low Wastage Evidences of improved moral and motivation level of the (LW) employees (V59) Employees are experiencing high level of job satisfaction and commitment (V60) Appendix – II: Indicators of Organizational Performance Organizational Performance Profit Margin Performance management system enhances profit margin of an (PMA) organization by recruiting the best talents, reducing absenteeism, identifying and meeting the training needs of existing staff (V61) Performance management system of an organization enhances profit margin by ensuring employee welfare, positive employee relationship and safe working environment of employees (V62) Performance management system saves money by implementing cost effective benefit programmes (V63) Customer Human resource management holds immense importance in providing Satisfaction motivation to the employees and at the same time, to increase the level of (CS) consumer satisfaction (V64) One of the most effective and efficient ways of increasing consumer satisfaction in performance management system, is to ensure employee satisfaction (V65) Setting of customer-focused goals and standards is an important component of performance management system (V66) 221

Low Wastage Waste management is very important for a company’s profitability (V67) (LW) Reduction in waste can help the company to reduce its cost and cost control is an outcome of the performance management system (V68) Environmental management system, workforce education and training, and incentive and reward mechanism can help an organization to the wastage of the resources (V69) Top management pays more attention on waste management as one of the key indicators of performance management and corporate profitability (V70) 222

CHAPTER - VII CONCLUSION