dissecting the PMS system in a company

1. THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT,
AHMEDABAD.
Assignment
ON
PMS
(Form Dissection)
SUBMITTED
TO
Prof. Gaurav Vats Sir
SUBMITTED BY: -
Pratik Negi
Shalini Kaushal
Utkarsh Mistry
Pooja TIwary

2. Analysis on performance ratings in a manufacturing company
The appraisal form is of a manufacturing company which is into making of industrial goods. The
company has around 500 employees including workers and managers.
The methods of Appraisal used in the form are:-
1. Part A-> Weighted average method is used as weights are assigned to different works.
For example Recruitment has 25% weightage.
2. To justify ratings given by employee and manager Critical incident method is used at
every step where both sides support their ratings by narrating incidents specific to the
responsibilities.
3. Part B-> Simple graphic rating scale is used to give ratings for performance factors.
Strengths of the form
1. The form is a two sided form having ratings from both side employee and manager which
ensures inter rater reliability.
2. The form is flexible that is same form is used in all departments which also means having
cost effective benefits.
3. Critical incident method provides justification which enhances simple ratings.
4. Employee progress and development is identified and given feedback on areas to improve
which is in Part E.
Weakness of the form
1. In part A regarding weights the task role clarity is not there which means suppose an
employee has focused only on Industrial relations the priority and weightage of his key
role is not very significant as compared to other roles which will hamper his
performance ratings.
2. The percentage achieved in quantified terms is very vague and parameter is not given to
assign percentage based on weights.
3. Content validity error prevails as there are things missing to be assessed and form is
generic in approach.
4. Open ended or critical incident methods are manipulative as no one would like to
mention any bad points or weakness. They will only focus which are good and fetch
good ratings for them.
5. Part C has an option of identifying competencies either in form of strengths or
weakness. In this every employee will focus on best competencies he has which will lead
to biasness and lack of criterion validity (What we are saying we are not measuring).

3. 6. In part B where employee and manager are required to give key job responsibilities they
both can differ on opinions leading to ambiguous ratings.
Recommendations
1. In part A -> Individual objective and desired results
Weights should be assigned after giving KRAs in that particular period and specific to
work done by the employee. Clear parameters should be set to decide percentage
achieved by weighted average method. For example in Recruitment
% weight-> 25 Employee assessment % achieved % achieved manager
Parameter used for assessing
0%-25 % -> supporting the recruitment activities.
25% -50% -> Supporting activities, use of relevant sources
50% -75% -> Supporting, end-to-end, sourcing, achieving all targets
75%-100% -> supporting, achieving more than expected, implementing new methods.
2. In part B the simple graphic rating scale should be given on KRAs identified commonly
by employee and manager for specific role.
Also the similar set of statements having content validity error should be removed.
For example for a worker performance factors can be
Employee rating manager rating
Handling machine
Time required finishing work
3. In Part C to rectify error of identifying competencies based on strength or weakness we can give
a pair of similar statements (Forced choice) to assess employee’s strengths and weakness both.
For example behavior is team behavior of worker Choose the most appropriate one among the
two
 Gels well with other workers.
 Helps other workers to do their work.
 Indulges in small fights
 Takes part in bad union politics