PROJECT REPORT

On
PACE – Performance and Competence for Excellence -
the performance appraisal/management system
At NTPC

Under the supervision of: Submitted by:

Prof. Abdul Qadir Anjusha Nair

Pgsf0905

PGDM(s)

JAIPURIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

NOIDA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project would not have been possible without the help of many people who have
contributed their efforts in this project.

Firstly, I would like to convey my profound indebtness to my project guide at NTPC, Ms.
Smita Menon, HR dept., for her invaluable advice, guidance and time that she has offered
in the completion of this project. This project would not have been possible without her
guidance and support.

I would also like to thank Ms. Poornima, NTPC who also helped me in the fulfillment of this
project. Not to forget, the employees of NTPC, the project would not have been completed
had they not helped me with filling up the questionnaires.

Finally, I would like to thank my Mentor, Prof. Abdul Qadir, for his valuable guidance and
suggestions in the working and improvement of this project.

ANJUSHA NAIR

CONTENTS
Particulars Page no.
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….pg 4 – 15
 Project Details…………………………………………………………..pg 5
 Company Profile………………………………………………………..pg 6 – 15

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………….pg 16 – 53
 Research Topic…………………………………………………………pg 17 – 52
 Sampling Design………………………………………………………..pg 52
 Data Analysis used in Study…………………………………………...pg 53
 Tools & Techniques used………………………………………………pg 53

3. REVIEW LITERATURE……………………………………………………...pg 54-59

4. DATA ANALLYSIS & INTERPRETATION………………………………....pg 60-110
5. RESEARCH FINDINGS & SUGGESTIONS……………………………….pg111-114
 PROJECT DETAILS

NTPC has been striving to meet the objective of developing performance culture through a
system called “Performance And Competence for Excellence” i.e. “PACE”. PACE is a part of
the Performance Management System of NTPC and is the performance appraisal system
only for the executives.

This report concentrates on the study of the “Performance And Competence for Excellence”
system at NTPC and to check its effectiveness and further to suggest and recommend any
possible ways to improve and strengthen its PMS.

To check the effectiveness of this system a survey with a help of questionnaires had been
conducted. Around 300 executive employees had filled up the questionnaire with the help of
which analysis had been done.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

(i) To carry out an assessment on the performance appraisal of the company and what
kind of performance management system has been implemented in the company.

(ii) To examine the gap between the required performance and the actual performance.

(iii) To determine the key places in the performance management system of the
company which are supposed to be enhanced.

(iv) To forecast the performance management system at NTPC.

(v) To find out the effectiveness of performance management system on NTPC.

(vi) To find out key points in satisfaction and improve the ways of satisfying the
employees.

(vii) To provide an overall sketch of how effective the performance management system
has been.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The present study id conferred to the managers of NTPC , all the managers of different
sections of NTPC come under the purview of this study. All the major aspects that affect the
assessment of performance appraisal needs in an organization fall under the purview of the
study.
 COMPANY PROFILE

      NTPC Limited is the largest thermal power generating company of India. A public sector
company, it was incorporated in the year 1975 to accelerate power development in the
country as a wholly owned company of the Government of India. At present, Government of
India holds 89.5% of the total equity shares of the company and FIIs, Domestic Banks,
Public and others hold the balance 10.5%. Within a span of 31 years, NTPC has emerged
as a truly national power company, with power generating facilities in all the major regions of
the country. Based on 1998 data, carried out by Data monitor UK, NTPC is the 6th largest in
terms of thermal power generation and the second most efficient in terms of capacity
utilization amongst the thermal utilities in the world.

NTPC Limited Formerly known as National Thermal Power Corporation. The Group's
principal activities are engineering, construction and operation of power generating plants
and providing consultancy to power utilities in India and abroad. The Group operates
through two segments. Power Generation includes generation and sale of bulk power to
SEBs/State Utilities. Others provide consultancy, project management and supervision,
maintenance services, power trading and distribution of bulk power. The Group has
generated 170.88 billion units of electricity in 2006

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPANY

      Over the last three decades, NTPC has spearheaded development of thermal power
generation in the Indian power sector. In this process, it has built a strong portfolio of coal
and gas/liquid fuel based generation capacities. The company has made initial forays in the
area of hydropower development and plans to have a significant share of hydropower in its
future generation portfolio. Although NTPC is also offering technical services, both in
domestic and international markets, through its Consultancy Wing, the generation business
would continue to be the single largest revenue generator for NTPC.

      The Indian power sector is witnessing several changes in the business and regulatory
environment. The legal and policy framework has changed substantially with the enactment
of the Electricity Act 2003. In the foreseeable future, India faces formidable challenges in
meeting its energy needs. Recently, a draft integrated energy policy has been issued, which
addresses all aspects including energy security, access, availability, affordability, pricing,
efficiency and environment. To meet the twin objectives of ensuring availability of electricity
to consumers at competitive rates, as well as attract large private investments in the sector,
a new Tariff policy has also been issued. The power sector thus offers a mixed bag of
challenges and opportunities to players and NTPC would continue to review its business
strategy and portfolio in light of these changes
NTPC’s core business is engineering, construction and operation of power generating
plants. It also provides consultancy in the area of power plant constructions and power
generation to companies in India and abroad. As on date the installed capacity of NTPC is
27,904 MW through its 15 coal based (22,895 MW), 7 gas based (3,955 MW) and 4 Joint
Venture Projects (1,054 MW). NTPC acquired 50% equity of the SAIL Power Supply
Corporation Ltd. (SPSCL). This JV Company operates the captive power plants of Durgapur
(120 MW), Rourkela (120 MW) and Bhilai (74 MW). NTPC also has 28.33% stake in
Ratnagiri Gas & Power Private Limited (RGPPL) a joint venture company between NTPC,
GAIL, Indian Financial Institutions and Maharashtra SEB Holding Co. Ltd. The present
capacity of RGPPL is 740 MW.

NTPC’s share on 31 Mar 2007 in the total installed capacity of the country was 20.18% and
it contributed 28.50% of the total power generation of the country during 2006-07.

NTPC has set new benchmarks for the power industry both in the area of power plant
construction and operations. It is providing power at the cheapest average tariff in the
country. With its experience and expertise in the power sector, NTPC is extending
consultancy services to various organizations in the power business.

NTPC is committed to the environment, generating power at minimal environmental cost

and preserving the ecology in the vicinity of the plants. NTPC has undertaken massive
afforestraion in the vicinity of its plants. Plantations have increased forest area and reduced
barren land. The massive afforestation by NTPC in and around its Ramagundam Power
station (2600 MW) has contributed reducing the temperature in the areas by about 3°c.
NTPC has also taken proactive steps for ash utilization. In 1991, it set up Ash Utilization
Division to manage efficient use of the ash produced at its coal stations. This quality of ash
produced is ideal for use in cement, concrete, cellular concrete, building material.

A "Centre for Power Efficiency and Environment Protection (CENPEEP)" has been
established in NTPC with the assistance of United States Agency for International
Development. (USAID). Cenpeep is efficiency oriented, eco-friendly and eco-nurturing
initiative - a symbol of NTPC's concern towards environmental protection and continued
commitment to sustainable power development in India.

As a responsible corporate citizen, NTPC is making constant efforts to improve the socio-
economic status of the people affected by its projects. Through its Rehabilitation and
Resettlement programmes, the company endeavors to improve the overall socio-economic
status of Project Affected Persons.

NTPC was among the first Public Sector Enterprises to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Government in 1987-88. NTPC has been Placed under the
'Excellent category' (the best category) every year since the MOU system became
operative.

Recognizing its excellent performance and vast potential, Government of the India has
identified NTPC as one of the jewels of Public Sector ‘Navratnas’- a potential global giant.
Inspired by its glorious past and vibrant present, NTPC is well on its way to realize it’s vision
of being “A world class integrated power major, powering India’s growth, with increasing
global presence”.

Developing and operating world-class power stations is NTPC’s core competence. Its scale
of operation, financial strength and large experience serve to provide an advantage over
competitors. To meet the objective of making available reliable and quality power at
competitive prices, NTPC would continue to speedily implement projects and introduce
state-of-art technologies.

Total capacity portfolio:

India’s generation capacity can be expected to grow from the current levels of about 120
GW to about 225-250 GW by 2017. NTPC currently accounts for about 20% of the country’s
installed capacity and almost 60% of the total installed capacity in the Central sector in the
country. Going forward, in its target to remain the largest generating utility of India, NTPC
would endeavor to maintain or improve its share of India’s generating capacity. Towards this
end, NTPC would target to build an overall capacity portfolio of over 66,000 MW by 2017. 

Fuel / Energy mix for capacity addition :

Currently, coal has a dominant share in the power generation capacities in India. This is also
reflected in the high share of coal-based capacities in NTPC’s current portfolio. With high
uncertainties involved in Domestic gas/ LNG, both in terms of availability and prices, NTPC
would continue to set up large pit-head coal based projects, including few integrated coal
cum power projects. To reduce the dependence on fossil fuels, there is a need to push for
renewable sources of power in the sector. NTPC would avail of opportunities to add
hydropower to its portfolio subject to competitive tariffs. A first step in this direction has
already been taken with the investment in Koldam Hydro Power Project. NTPC would
continue to closely monitor developments on nuclear front also and be open to setting up
around 2000 MW of Nuclear power generation capacity, possibly through a Joint Venture.
As a leader in power generation, NTPC would also consider other energy sources such as
biomass, cogeneration, fuel cells, etc for future development thereby reducing the
dependence on thermal fuels.

While a decision on the fuel/energy mix for NTPC in the future would be largely governed by
their relative tariff-competitiveness, the fuel mix in 2017 may be different from the existing
portfolio, though not very significantly.

Diversification along the Value Chain :

NTPC has achieved the distinction of being the largest thermal generating company in India.
In the past, this focus was adequate as the industry was highly regulated with limited
diversification opportunities. Over last few years, the country has been facing acute
shortages, both in coal and gas, severely affecting optimum utilization of its power stations
and these shortages are likely to continue in future as well. This is in spite of the fact that
India is one of the largest producers of coal in the World. To safeguard its competitive
advantage in power generation business, NTPC has moved ahead in diversifying its
portfolio to emerge as an integrated power major, with presence across entire energy value
chain. In fact, to symbolize this change, NTPC has taken on a new identity and a new name
“NTPC Limited”. NTPC has recently diversified into coal mining business primarily to secure
its fuel requirements and support its aggressive capacity addition program. In addition,
NTPC is also giving thrust on diversification in the areas of power trading and distribution.
Diversification would also allow NTPC to offer new growth opportunities to its employees
while leveraging their skills to capitalize on new opportunities in the sector.

Establishing a Global Presence:

To become a truly global company serving global markets, it is essential for NTPC to
establish its brand equity in overseas markets. NTPC would continue to focus on offering
Engineering & Project Management Services, Operations & Maintenance services, and
Renovation & Modernization services in the international market.

Establishing a successful services brand would be a precursor to taking higher investment

decisions in different markets. Going forward, NTPC would continue to evaluate various
options for strengthening its presence in global markets including setting up power
generation capacity, acquisition of gas blocks etc.

Circa 2017: NTPC’s corporate profile:

By the year 2017, NTPC would have successfully diversified its generation mix, diversified
across the power value chain and entered overseas markets. As a result NTPC would have
altered its profile significantly. Elements of the revised profile that NTPC would seek to
achieve are:

 Amongst top five market capitalization in the Indian market

 An Indian MNC with presence in many countries
 Diversified utility with multiple businesses
 Setting benchmarks in project construction and plant availability & efficiency
 Preferred employer
 Have a strong research and technology base
 Loyal customer base in both bulk and retail supply
 A leading corporate citizen with a keen focus on executing its social responsibility

Vision of NTPC:

“A world class integrated power major, powering India’s growth, with increasing
global presence”

Mision of NTPC:

“Develop and provide reliable power, related products and services at competitive
prices, integrating multiple energy sources with innovative and eco – friendly
technologies and contribute to society”
The Core Values (B-COMIT):

 Business Ethics
 Customer Focus
 Organizational & Professional Pride
 Mutual Respect and Trust
 Innovation and Speed
 Total quality for Excellence

Corporate Objectives:
In pursuance of the Vision and Mission, the following are the Corporate Objectives of
NTPC:
To realize the vision and mission, eight key corporate objectives have been identified. These
objectives would provide the link between the defined mission and the functional strategies.
 Business Portfolio Growth
 to further consolidate NTPC’s position as the leading thermal power generation
company in India and establish a presence in Hydro power segment.

 To broad base the generation mix by evaluating conventional and non –

conventional sources of energy to ensure long run competitiveness and mitigate fuel
risk.

 To diversify across the power value chain in India by considering backward and
forward integration into areas such as power trading, transmission, distribution, coal
mining, coal beneficiation, etc.

 To establish a strong services brand in the domestic and international markets.

 Customer Focus
 To foster a collaborative style of working with customers, growing to be a preferred
brand for supply of quality power.
  To expand the relationship with existing customers by offering a bouquet of services
in addition to supply of power e.g. trading, energy consulting, distribution consulting,
management practices.
 To expand the future customer portfolio through profitable diversification into
downstream businesses, inter alia retail distribution and direct supply.
 Ensure rapid commercial decision making, using customer specific information, with
adequate concern for the interests of the customer.

 Agile Corporation
 to ensure effectiveness in business decisions and responsiveness to changes in the
business environment by:
 Adopting a portfolio approach to new business development.
 Continuous and co – ordinated assessment of the business environments to
identify and respond to opportunities and threats.
 To develop a learning organization having knowledge based competitive edge
in current and future business.

 Performance Leadership
 to continuously improve on project execution time and cost in order to sustain long
run competitiveness in generation.
 To operate and maintain NTPC stations at par with the best - run utilities in the world
with respect to availability, reliability, efficiency, productivity and costs.
 To effectively leverage information technology to drive process efficiencies.\
 To aim for performance excellence in the diversification businesses.
 To embed quality in all systems and processes.

 Human Resource Development

 To enhance organizational performance by institutionalizing an objective and open
performance management system.
 to align individual and organizational needs and develop business leaders by
implementing a career development system.
  To enhance commitment of employees by recognizing and rewarding high
performance.
 To build and sustain a learning organization of competent world – class
professionals.
 To institutionalize core values and create a culture of team – building,
empowerment, equity, innovation, and openness which would motivate employees
and enable achievement of strategic objectives.

 Financial Soundness
 To maintain and improve the financial soundness of NTPC by prudent management
of the financial resources.
 To continuously strive to reduce the cost of capital through prudent management of
deployed funds, leveraging opportunities in domestic and international financial
markets.
 To develop appropriate commercial policies and processes which would ensure
remunerative tariffs and minimize receivables.
 to continuously strive for reduction in cost of power generation by improving
operating practices.

 Sustainable Power Development

 To contribute to sustainable power development by discharging corporate social
responsibilities.
 To lead the sector in the areas of resettlement and rehabilitation and environment
protection including effective ash – utilsation, peripheral development and energy
conservation practices.
 To lead development efforts in the Indian power sector through efforts at policy
advocacy, assisting customers in reform, disseminating best practices in the
operations and management of power plants etc.

 Research and Development

 To pioneer the adoption of reliable, efficient and cost – effective technologies by
carrying out fundamental and applied research in alternate fuels and technologies.
  To carry out research and development of breakthrough techniques in power plant
construction and operation that can lead to more efficient, reliable and environment
friendly operation of power plants in the country.
 To disseminate the technologies to other players in the sector and in the long run
generating revenue through proprietary technologies.

NTPC TOP LIST OF MOU AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN

PERFORMANCE:

NTPC Limited has been ranked top awardee for MoU Award for Excellence in
Performance, instituted by DPE, consecutively for two years, 2004-05 and 2005-06
with 'Excellent' rating. Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon'ble Prime Minister of India
presented the MoU Awards to Shri T. Sankaralingam, CMD, NTPC Ltd.

NTPC-AN EMPLOYER OF CHOICE:

NTPC has been ranked fifth among the top ten “Best companies to work for in India”
by Mercer HR Consulting-Business Today Survey 2005.

CONSULTANCY:

NTPC provides consultancy in all its aspects of power plant construction and
management right from concept of commissioning and beyond. Combining the
technical, managerial and financial skills, it provides the holistic solutions to power
businesses all over the world,

NTPC DISTRIBUTED GENERATION:

NTPC Limited has initiated the concept of electrification of remote villages by setting
up Distributed Generation projects and demonstrating a sustainable business model
leading to integrated growth of villages for achieving the goal of "Electricity for all".

ENVIRONMENT-GREEN POWER:

NTPC delivers power at minimal environment cost, and achieves it. Right from the
stage of its project conceptualization, technology selection to operations, care is taken
to preserve the natural ecology and minimize environmental impact.
CENPEEP:

The Center for Power Efficiency & Environmental Protection, resource center for state
of art technologies for performance optimization, continues to strive for performance
optimization of power plants.

NTPC Limited has been presented Scope Meritorious Award for Best Practices in
Human Resource Management – Shri presented 2004-05 for Innovative Human
Resource Management Practices well integrated with the business requirements of the
Company. Sontosh Mohan Dev, Hon’ble Minister of Heavy Industries and Public
Enterprises to Shri T. Sankaralingam, CMD, NTPC Limited in New Delhi, on 8th
November 2006.

Shri Chandan Roy, Director (Operations), NTPC Limited has been conferred with
Eminent Engineer Award by the Institution of Engineers (India), for his distinguished
services in Engineering Sector during the year 2006 in the area of NCT of Delhi.  

A mechanical engineer by profession Shri Chandan Roy is also Chairman, Ratnagiri

Power Project Limited. He is also on the Board of Damoder Valley Corporation
(DVC), Northern Coal Fields Limited (NCL) and Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Limited (NPCIL).

On the occasion of Power Line magazine’s Tenth Anniversary celebrations, on 11th

October, 2006 in New Delhi, Mr. Sushi Kumar Shinde, and Union Minister of Power
presented “Expert Choice Awards” to honor the leading achievers in the power sector.
NTPC was recognized as the "Best Organization in Central Sector".

HR VISION –

“To enable our people to be a family of committed world class professionals, making
NTPC a learning organization”.
NO. OF EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES IN NTPC - EOC : GRADE WISE TOTAL

GRADE MALE FEMALE TOTAL

E1 27 18 45
E2 29 7 36
E2A 157 31 188
E3 198 30 228
E4 106 13 119
E5 127 11 138
E6 221 16 237
E7 287 15 302
TOTAL 1297 143 1440
 RESEARCH TOPIC - PACE

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Performance appraisal can be defined as the process of evaluating the performance of an

employee & communicating the result of the evaluation to him for the purpose of rewarding
& developing the employee. According to Michael Armstrong “Performance appraisal is a
formal assessment & rating of individual by their managers at usually at annual review
meeting.” Performance can be defined as the degree of accomplishment of tasks by an
employee in his job. In some organizations it is measure of the result achieved & target
accomplished whereas in others, it is a measure of employee efforts & behavior. However
most organizations use a combination of both efforts & results. Performance appraisal is
also termed as performance review, annual review & annual appraisal.

THE APPRAISAL PROCESS

1. The first step in the appraisal performance process is the determination of standard
of performance based on the organizational objectives & job descriptions.
2. The next step of performance appraisal is the measurement of employees
performance against the pre-determined goal & standards.
3. The next step is the actual process of measurement. Performance appraisal has to
be a continuous process & feedback should be given to the employee at regular
intervals.
4. The next step is the very critical step & involves communicating the result of the
appraisal to the employee concerned.
5. Once appraisal is finalized after discussing it with the employees, it have to be put
effective use.

THE APPRAISER:

The appraiser is that person who access the performance of a person or an employee. In
more recent concept like 360 degree feedback, the peer/colleagues of the employee, his
supplier, his customer, & even his subordinate play a role in assessing his performance.

SELF-APPRAISAL:

As has been discussed earlier self appraisal is the common practice today, with the
employee being given a role in evaluating their own performance. The employee himself is
best equipped to evaluate his performance because he understands his strengths &
weaknesses the best.

SUPERVISOR:
It is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure that his subordinate perform their jobs well.
Hence the authority to evaluate the employees’ performance has traditionally been with the
supervisor.

PEERS:

Peer evaluation is very sensitive area as it may lead to false & unhealthy appraisal because
of competition among peers. The organization has to reach an advanced stage of
development before it can handle peer appraisal.

CUSTOMERS:

The performance of an employee has a direct & immediate impact on his customer either
internal or external. In service organization like banks & hotels customer feedback has
become the most important tool in evaluating the employees performance.

SUBORDINATES:

The concept of subordinate evaluating the performance of his supervisor yet to gain
acceptance in most Indian companies. The Indian culture does not encourage the idea of
subordinate appraisal.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL METHODS

1. Management by objective or goal setting.

2. Graphic rating scale.
3. Work standard approach.
4. Essay appraisal.
5. Critical incidence method.
6. Forced choice rating method.
7. Point allocation method.
8. Ranking method.
9. Check list.
10. Behavioral anchored rating scale.(BARS)
11. 360 degree performance appraisal.
12. Team appraisal.
13. Balanced scorecard method.
MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVE (MBO)

The main aspect of MBO is clear & well defined goals, a definite time span to achieve the
goals, action plan & finally, timely & constructive feedback. It is also called a goal setting
approach; MBO is more commonly used for managers & professionals.

GRAPHIC RATING SCALE

This method of appraisal requires the rater to rate the employee on factors like quantity &
quality of work, job knowledge, dependability, punctuality, attendance etc. This method is
also used for performance appraisal of employees. They check their employees daily by
using this method.

WORK STANDARD APPROACH

This method of appraisal is more suitable in a manufacturing scenario, where the goals are
pre determined work standard. These work standards can be set based on the average
output of a typical employee in the organization or by bench marking against the work
standard of a competitor in a similar business.

ESSAY APPRAISAL

In the essay appraisal method, the appraiser prepares a document describing the
performance of the employees. Questions or guidelines are provider to the appraiser based
on which analyses & describes the employees’ performance.

CRITICAL INCIDENT METHOD

In this method of performance appraisal, the appraiser makes a note of all the critical
incident that reflect the performance & behavior of the employee during the appraisal period.
These are recoded as & when they occur & can demonstrate either positive or negative
traits or performance.

FORCED CHOICE RATING METHOD

In this method the appraiser is required to assign ranks to different attributes are all
seemingly positive, but have different weights which are unknown to the appraiser. Once the
employees’ attributes are ranked the human resource department applies the weights &
arrives at a score which is the final appraisal score.

POINT ALLOCATION MATHOD

In this method of appraisal, the appraiser has to allocate points to different members in his
team. He has at disposal , a specific number of points which he has to distribute among his
team members, based on their performance during the appraisal period.

RANKING METHOD

There are three commonly used methods of ranking namely alternation, paired comparison
& forced distribution. The first two methods are used when there are only a few employees
to be ranked, whereas forced distribution method is used in large companies which have
thousands of employees.

CHECKLIST

In this method the rater has to respond ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a set of questions which assess the
employee’s performance & behavior. Normally weights are attached to each of these
questions based on which the final appraisal score of the employee is calculated.

BEHAVIOR ANCHORED RATING SYSTEM (BARS)

BARS concentrates on the behavioral traits demonstrated by the employees instead of his
actual performance. Some of the other methods like graphic rating scale & checklist also
measure the behavior based on the assumption that desirable behavior result in effective
performance.

360 DEGREE PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS

A 360 degree appraisal system aims at a comprehensive & objective appraisal of employee
performance. In a 360 degree appraisal system the employees’ performance is evaluated by
his supervisor, his peers, his internal external customers, his internal external suppliers &
his subordinates. This system reduces the subjectivity of a traditional supervisor appraisal.
TEAM APPRAISAL

In the new economy era, where team work is essential for any venture to succeed, team
appraisal has emerged as one of the best tool for the performance management. In the
team appraisal method the individual team member evaluate their colleagues in the team &
provide feedback.

BALANCED SCORECARD

The balanced scorecard as a method of measuring performance channelizes the efforts of

people to achieve organizational goals. The implementation of balanced scorecard involve
formulating a strategy & deciding what each employee needs to do to achieve the objectives
based on strategy.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Performance measurement is the process of assessing progress toward achieving

predetermined goals. Performance management is building on that process, adding the
relevant communication and action on the progress achieved against these predetermined
goals.

 In network performance management,

 (a) a set of functions that evaluate and report the behavior of telecommunications
equipment and the effectiveness of the network or network element and
 (b) a set of various sub functions, such as gathering statistical information,
maintaining and examining historical logs, determining system performance under
natural and artificial conditions, and altering system modes of operation.
 (c)In organizational development (OD), performance can be thought of as Actual
Results vs. Desired Results. Any discrepancy, where Actual is less than Desired,
could constitute the performance improvement zone. Performance management and
improvement can be thought of as a cycle:

1. Performance planning where goals and objectives are established

2. Performance coaching where a manager intervenes to give feedback and adjust
performance
3. Performance appraisal where individual performance is formally documented and
feedback delivered

A performance problem is any gap between Desired Results and Actual Results.
Performance improvement is any effort targeted at closing the gap between Actual
Results and Desired Results.
  Application Performance Management (APM) refers to the discipline within systems
management that focuses on monitoring and managing the performance and
availability of software applications. APM can be defined as workflow and related IT
tools deployed to detect, diagnose, remedy and report on application performance
issues to ensure that application performance meets or exceeds end-users’ and
businesses’ expectations.

 Business performance management (BPM) is a set of processes that help

businesses discover efficient use of their business units, financial, human and
material resources.

 Operational performance management (OPM) focus is on creating methodical and

predictable ways to improve business results, or performance, across organizations.

Simply put, performance management helps organizations achieve their strategic goals.
Rather than discarding the data accessibility previous systems fostered, performance
management harnesses it to help ensure that an organization’s data works in service to
organizational goals to provide information that is actually useful in achieving them. And
focus on the Operational Networking Processes between that performance levels.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL OF EXECUTIVES THROUGH

“PACE”

PACE is the performance appraisal/ management system (PMS, as it is commonly known)

for the executive employees at NTPC. This system was implemented in the year 2004 in
NTPC.

Earlier the performance appraisal system was more of a subjective sort of sought of system
i.e., earlier there weren’t any set targets or key performance areas for the employees, it was
just the performance they made and the feedback on it was given to the employees on a
yearly basis.

Now the PACE has become more objective – oriented, i.e., there are set KPA’s for the
employees. The key performance areas include:

 Technical knowledge
 Business attitude
 Strategic thinking
 Resource management
  Communication skills
 System thnking
 Interpersonal competencies
 Employment skills

There is a basic question that would come to anyone’s mind that why is PACE only for the
executive employees and why not for the non – executive employees as well. It is so
because the employees at the non – executive levels may not be able to understand the
whole PMS system as some of them at different levels may not be that educated to
understand the system; i.e., they might not be well – versed with the system, and therefore
will not be able to work according to the system and therefore they have a different appraisal
system.

Performance Appraisal System for

Executives

1.0 Introduction   The performance Appraisal System for executives of

NTPC has been evolved after wide ranging
  discussions abd participation of all concerned at
various stages. With a view to meeting the individual
and organizational needs. The System is an outcome
of these deliberations on the objectives, forms and the
process of the appraisal.

 
2.0 Objectives 2.1 Effective Work Planning: To set Targets and Performance
norms, monitor work progress and plan for improved
performance.

 
2.2 Training and Development: To understand the gaps in
knowledge, skills and attitudes that exists and see how
these can be filled by planned guidance and training.

 
2.3 Placement: To consider an employee’s suitability of
different types of assignments and matching the abilities
and expertise of the existing personnel with the job
requirements.
  
2.4 Promotion: To provide the basis for determination of
merit, efficiency and suitability for purposes of promotion.

 
3.0 Evaluation What is being evaluated

 
3.1  Evaluation of work performance on the present job i.e. the
extent to which performance norms and targets have been
met quantitatively and qualitatively.

 
3.2 The evaluation of behavioral attributes, attitudes and
executive abilities.

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

 
3.4   Evaluation for potential for assuming higher
responsibilities,

 
3.5 Alternative roles/functions into which the executive can
move.
\ 3.6 Overall assessment of the employee.

 
4.0 Coverage

4.1       The appraisal will cover performance during the financial  year. The
format and the process of appraisal will be the same for all functions
and similar for all levels of executives.

4.2        The appraisal form is to be filled by all executives who have served for
period of at least 3 months in the Organization during the financial year.

5.0           Process of Appraisal   

5.1        The Performance Appraisal System in NTPC is essentially
an  appraisal by results. It will be based on work planning and review,
where an employee is evaluated against the targets/performance norms
set jointly by him and his superior which in turn are based on the
departmental/Group norms and targets and the overall organizational
plans.

5.2        In other words, an integral aspect of the Performance Appraisal

System is determination of performance norms and targets and periodic
review of these norms, tasks and targets which form the basis for
arriving at the annual assessment

6.0       Periodic Review    

6.1 Having determined the performance norms/targets for each

Group/Department, the major tasks and responsibilities for each
individual executive will be identified jointly by him and his superior.

6.2        These individual tasks will be set and reviewed on a monthly basis as
far as possible.However, in cases :

6.3 (i) Where a large element of work is of unforeseen nature and

hence it cannot be converted into pro- determined monthly
targets

(ii) Where there is likelihood of frequent changes in the

priorities that are set on monthly basis;

(iii) Where task forces are required to be constituted to meet

certain exigencies at work;

(iv) Where an individual's work is largely dependent on the work

originating in other departments;

The record of such tasks with respect to each individual will be maintained
daily/weekly in the format close to prescribed format and in-corporate d in the
periodic records. The system will thus take care of both pre-determined and
unplanned elements of work. It needs to be reiterated that review on monthly/ periodic
basis of norms and targets for each individual is imperative, although the HODs may
develop their own alternatives with respect to maintaining such records.
6.4 the major tasks set for each individual executive will cover both innovative and
routine aspetcts of the job.

6.5 the no. of tasks/ performance norms that are listed and the priorities ascribed to them
will be determined mutually by the appraiser and the appraise.

6.6 With regard to evaluation and review of targets and performance norms, the
subordinate and his superior should identify check points/ intermediate milestones
and control information for monitoring the progress, since the end of appraisal period
is not necessarily the best time at which to assess the progress on targets. The
correlation between the activities and the achievement of the target will be
established by the appraiser to make the final evaluation .

6.7 In assessing the achievement of the targets and performance norms cognizance will
be taken of the external constraints and special efforts that have been made to
overcome the constraints.

6.8 Feedback on the extent of achievement of performances norms/targets will be given

by the appraiser to the appraisee.

6.9 The above periodic records of tasks performance norms and their achievement will
be maintained by the appraiser .

7.0 Annual Review

7.1 Periodic reports on performance for each employee should be correlated and form
the basis for arriving at the annual assessment. The manner in which the
monthly/periodic reports are translated into an annual assessment will be based on the
relative priorities of tasks/performance norms assigned and fulfilled and extent to
which constraints were overcome.
7.2 The appraiser should have a review discussion with the employee before making his
annual assessment.

7. 3 In the annual report there is a provision for self-evaluation by the appraise. This is in
view of the fact:

 that jobs at executive level have to be seen in totality rather than a sum total of tasks,
targets or norms and the appraise just a chance to review his performance and
express his view points.

 there are areas of discretion open to an executive, but not incorporated formally into
objectives such as spontaneously creative activities which an innovative executive
might choose to do.

7.4 Annual appraisal in addition provides for assessment of certain attributes and abilities
by the appraiser on a three point scale. Assessment of attributes provides a common
standard for comparison between employees (engaged in a vast variety of jobs)

7.5 Both the subjective and objective elements of a job are thus considered for
assessment.

7.6 Alternative roles/functions into which the appraise can move and assessment of
potential for movement to the related roles/functions on a 3 point scale (High,
Moderate & Low) forms an integral part of the System.

7.7 Potential for assuming higher responsibilities on a 3 point, rating scale is also
assessed.

7.8 Assessment of overall performance on a five point scale and in case where ranking is
`outstanding' or `not satisfactory', supporting facts for the same.

7.9 Adverse comments on performance, will as a rule, be communicated to the appraise

in writing by reviewing officer.

8.0 Who Appraises

8.1 Appraisal for each executive will be done by the Reporting Officer ( to whom the
executive reports) and by Reviewing Officer (to whom the reporting officer reports),
 which, it is believed, will provide checks and greater objectivity. The General
Manager/Executive Director of the respective division will Countersign the report in
case of agreement, and record his assessment wherever it differs from those of the
reporting and reviewing officers. The Countersigning authority with respect to
appraisal reports of Managers & above and in cases where GM is the direct
Reporting Officer, will be the Executive Director/Director.

8.2 The appraisal report of the heads of functional areas like Finance & HR in Projects will be
written by the respective General Manager of the Project and reviewed by the ED, in
case GM is the reporting officer it will then be filled by the concerned Functional Director.
In case the assessment is different it will be sent to CMD with assessment of the
Functional Director and CMD's assessment will be final.

8.3 If the appraise has worked with more than one reporting officer for more than 3 months,
he will be assessed by all the concerned reporting officers.

9.0 Feedback and Review Discussions

9.1 In the review discussions preceding the annual assessment the following may be
discussed between the reporting officer and the person assessed.

-       Extent of achievement

-        Reasons for shortfall

-        Measures to avoid future set-back in target achievement.
-        Future action plan.

9.2 The extent, of achievement should be communicated to the appraise with respect to
the evaluation on periodic targets, and evaluation of executive abilities and attributes;
but may not be communicated with respect to rating on overall evaluation.

9.3 As mentioned earlier, adverse comments on annual performance will as a rule

communicated in writing by the Reviewing Officer.

10.0 Adverse Report

10.1 In the event of the overall assessment being not satisfactory a communication will be
issued to the concerned executive after the report has been countersigned by the
 concerned authority. For this the countersigning authority will send back the report to
the Reviewing Officer for issuing the necessary communication to the concerned
executive. The communication will be issued by the Reviewing Officer along with
detailed and specific facts and figures substantiating the adverse remarks.

10.2 Comments of the appraise will be asked on the adverse report. The adverse report
along with the comments of the appraise will be examined by the countersigning
authority who will record his final decision along with reasons. Wherever the
reviewing officer is CMD, his decision regarding expunction/retention of the
adverse comments after due examination of the explanation submitted by the
appraises, will be final.

10.3 The final decision will be communicated to the appraise with regard to: the earlier
assessment being retained or after due consideration the earlier remarks are
expunged and the same being noted in the appraisal form.

11.0 Moderation

11.1 Moderation is an important aspect of post appraisal follow up. Standards and
ratings tend to vary widely and sometimes unfairly. Appraisal System is incomplete
without built-in features for evolving commonly understood standards and for
analysis and moderation of variation and biases.

11.2 Some aspects of moderation built into the existing system are:

 It is centered around performance on specific tasks; and it contains periodic

reviews rather than once a year activity-there by taking into account 'errors of
immediacy' or' halo effect'.

 The existing appraisal system provides for a multi level evaluation which it is
believed will provide checks and greater objectivity.

 The Revised Performance Appraisal System provides for Constitution of

"Moderation Committee" (Vide Ol/HRD/93 dt.30.4.93)

 The 'Moderation Committee" will, generally, be as under :

For Executives Constitution of Moderation Committee at
the level of
El to E4 Chairman  Concerned GM/Head
of Project/Unit
  Member Concerned HOD
  Convener Concerned Head of
Personnel
E5 Chairman Concerned ED
  Member Concerned GM
    Concerned AGM
    Concerned DGM (If
DGM is not in position
the Concerned HOD)
  Convener Concerned Regional
Head of Personnel
E6, E7&E7A Chairman Concerned Functional
Director
  Member  Concerned ED
Concerned GM
  Convener ED (P&A)/AGM
(HRD)C.C

 In exceptional situations, the Constitution of the Committee will be

as indicated below :
i. Where the CMD himself is the Reporting Officer (in cases of
STA or Executive Secretary to CMD etc.) or where the
Director/Executive Director is the Reporting Officer and CMD
is the countersigning authority, there will be no "Moderation
Committee" and the assessment of the CMD will be final.
However, in cases where the Executive Director is the
Reporting Officer and Director of the Company is the
countersigning authority, the Committee will be headed by
the Concerned Director and the Executive Director will be a
Member.
ii. In respect of Heads of Finance, HR & FQA of the Project/Regional
Headquarters, the Concerned Functional Director will be the
Chairman of the "Moderation Committee" and the other members
will be the Concerned Regional Executive Director and Functional
Executive Director.
iii. In respect of Heads of Vigilance of the Projects/ Regional
Headquarters, the "Moderation Committee" will consist of the
 Concerned Regional Executive Director and the Functional Head at
Corporate Center.

 The "Moderation Committee" meeting should be arranged after the

Performance Appraisal Reports in respect of all the executives of the
Project/Unit are received by the Chairman of the Committee.
 The "Moderation Committee" should ensure that the prescribed rating
distribution norms are strictly adhered to.
 The "Moderation Committee" will be applicable in respect of Executives at
the level of El to E5 for the year 1992. As regards the Executives at the level
of E6 and above, the same will be applicable for the appraisal year 1993-94.

 Inspite of built-in features in the system for moderation, periodical moderation

would be essential where there is a definite pattern in the overall ratings being
too liberal or conservative.
 This moderation is sometimes done in the CPCs where such disparities in
ratings, being given by the executives are highlighted. There is also an effort to
define what constitutes 'Exceptional' viz. an executive can be rated as
"Exceptional' only if he has shown some rare qualities of leadership,
dynamism and technical excellence not confined only to the discipline in which
he is working but in his Unit/Project as a whole.
 Awareness about likely errors in assessment including distribution of
assessment ratings for the specific project is created in forums and
performance Appraisal Workshop that are held from time to time. An attempt
to evolve general undertaking of what constitute “ average” and “outstanding”
performance is also covered during these performances/

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM @ NTPC

OBJECTIVES:

 To accomplish organizational goals through a system of performance assessment

linked to company’s objectives.
 to facilitate fulfillment of individual aspirations and promotion of professional
excellence.
 To encourage a two – day communication process between the appraise and the
reporting officer for binging objectivity in performance appraisal system.
 To evaluate the potential of the executive to assume higher responsibilities along
the hierarchy.
  To involve the appraise through various stages of performance management,
thereby reducing the performance gaps.
 To map competencies and potential of executives for enabling the organization to
source the talent generally from within the company for meeting organizational
growth.
 To involve the executive to share the responsibility and become accountable for
efficient management of the business for result oriented performance through
mutual involvement.
 To provide a transparent system to help each executive to evaluate his own
performance and develop himself with the help of reporting officer.
 To provide for removal of differences, if any, in performance appraisal through
intervention of the reviewing officer.

FOCUS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

 The focus of the performance management system for senior executives is to

appraise them on different components of managerial responsibilities, consisting of
performance, generic managerial competencies, values and potential, totaling to
100 marks.

 The performance component as identified and measures evolved would have 50%
wieghtage in total appraisal.

 The company’s concern for actualization of organizational core values is reflected

in the performance management and is assigned a weightage of 15% in appraisal.
 Generic Managerial competencies exhibited by an Appraisee while discharging
duties have been given 20% weightage in appraisal.

 The Company’s concern for actualization of organizational Core Values is reflected

in the Performance Management and is assigned a weightage of 15% in appraisal.

 The Performance Management System brings to focus important managerial

attributes and strikes a balance between ‘Performance’ and other aspects of
managerial talents/skills. Executives will have a set of Key Performance Areas to
be identified through discussion and achieve them during the performance period .

 The system is to develop the competencies by involving the executive in setting

targets and identifying Key Performance Areas.
  To utilize the Performance Management System for facilitating individual career
development and bring organisation-wide HR intervention at senior levels to bridge
competency gaps.

PERIODICITY:

 The Performance Appraisal Period would run concurrent with the financial year i.e.
from 1st April to 31st March.

 The System provides for setting up of Key Performance Areas (KPAs) and
reviewing the same in two half-yearly periods.
 The first half year is from 1st April to 30th September and the second half- year is
from 1st Oct. to 31st March.

 While reviewing the KPAs of the first half-year, the targets for Key Performance
Areas for the second half year are evolved.
 While reviewing the KPAs of the first half year, the targets for Key Performance
Areas for the second half year are evolved.
 At the end of the Performance Appraisal year, the review for the second half of the
year is undertaken. The review would also involve annual appraisal of KPAs,
Competencies, Values and Potential Appraisal .

COMPONENTS OF PERFORMANCE REVIEW:

 The Performance Management System, consisting of the following components is
implemented through ‘Performance Appraisal Form’.
 PART I – PERFORMANCE
o Part IA: first half year performance
o Part IB: second year performance
Review of KPA’s for 2nd half year
o Part IC: annual performance
o Part ID: comments on performance
 PART II – competencies
 PART III – values
 PART IV – potential appraisal
 PART V – performance and potential profile
 PART I-PERFORMANCE:
 Part IA: FIRST HALFYEAR PERFROMANCE
o The System provides for the Reporting Officer (Appraiser) and the
executive (Appraisee) to identify through discussion and agree upon a set
of Key Performance Areas (KPAs) in brief at the beginning of the first half-
year.
o While identifying KPAs, actual ‘Measures’ for each KPA is to be defined
and written. The Measure could have Quantitative Targets, Time Schedule
for achieving KPAs fully/partially, Qualitative Improvements etc., based on
the nature of the KPA item
o The KPA Targets may be having different weightages and limited to 8 Key
Performance Areas only. The idea is to enable the executive to focus on
given deliverables and not miss important critical areas.

o The KPAs should be more focussed, concrete and measureable. They

should be more than the “Norm” i.e. normal standard of performance
expected. The KPAs reflect ‘Stretch Standard’ which is in excess of “Norm”.
The KPAs should be ‘SMART’ i.e. Specific, Measurable, Agreed (mutually
arrived at by the Appraiser and the Appraisee), Realistic and Time-Bound.

o One of the KPAs should be “Staff Development”, as building a performing

team is an essential target for senior executives. The measures for this
could be mandays of training & development activities for the Unit/
Department/function vis-a-vis the Company’s training targets, HR initiatives
like Professional Circles, Quality Circles, Suggestion Scheme etc.
o The Appraiser and Appraisee jointly evolve KPAs, define measures and
allocate marks for each KPA at the beginning of first half-year by 15th April.
o The Performance under Part IA is jointly reviewed and performance
evaluated at the beginning of 2nd half year and not later than 15th October.
o At the time of joint review, actual achievement is briefly recorded against
each KPA and marks obtained w.r.t. each KPA is indicated in relevant
column.
o The aggregate of marks obtained for different KPAs is worked out and
indicated as aggregate of IA. Both the Appraisee and the Reporting
Officer sign the Part IA.

 PART IB – SECOND HALF YEAR PERFORMANCE

 o The System helps to review the Key Performance Area Targets for the
Second Half-Year based on the evaluation of 1st half-year KPAs depending
on actual achievements.
o The reworked KPA targets are briefly recorded, ‘Measures’ for each KPA
defined and Marks allocated. KPAs which extend beyond the 1st half year
may be re-recorded in the targets of the 2nd half-year.
o The KPAs may undergo change owing to target accomplished, new targets
coming up, change of role etc.

o The Performance Evaluation of 2nd half-year Performance is jointly

undertaken on completion of 2nd half year/Annual Performance year and
not later than 15th April.
o During the Performance Evaluation, the actual achievement is assessed
against each KPA and marks obtained against each KPA is indicated.
o The marks obtained are aggregated at the bottom out of 50 marks as
aggregate.

 PART IC: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE

o This part consolidates the 1st half-year and 2nd half-year Performance of
the Appraisee by aggregating Performance Marks obtained in Part IA and
Part IB.
o The Annual Performance Marks out of 50 marks be computed based on the
formula mentioned in Part 1C and marks obtained be indicated in the Box.
o The marks so obtained out of 50 would be the marks secured for “Annual
Performance” in the achievement of KPAs.
o The Appraisee and the Reporting Officer would jointly endorse the Annual
Performance by signatures.

 PART ID: COMMENTS ON PERFORMANCE

o Part I related to Performance gets completed on filling up of Part ID by the
Reporting Officer at the end of Appraisal year.
o In Part ID the Reporting Officer offers comments w.r.t. KPAs, Measures,
Achievements and sums up in brief the Performance profile of the
appraisee in writing. It would provide a pictorial description on the
performance of the appraisee for the year.
 o While summarising the performance, the Reporting Officer would bring out
summary of Key Performance Areas achieved in the year; point out positive
personality factors that were observed during the performance,
unfavourable situations that were encountered by the appriasee during the
period, favourable conditions that prevailed in the situation and finally
mention the negative personality factors which were observed and which
came in the way of achieving KPAs, if any.
o The Reporting Officer should base the evaluation of the performance based on
the data collected during the performance period. It is therefore desirable to
maintain a diary for monitoring the performance and providing feedback from
time to time during the relevant performance period.

 DETERMINATION OF INPUT FOR PART IA AND PART IB:

o Key Performance Areas (KPAs) are such critical areas of performance,
which though constitute few in number, would have major impact on
Business/Targets of the Units/Functions.
o The input for identification of Key Performance Areas, Measures and
allocation of marks to different KPAs will have to be derived and worked out
from the Annual Performance Targets of the Project, Station, Division,
Department and Function as the case may be.
o Similarly, the KPA inputs and measures are also derived from the MOU
Targets set for the financial year which flows down from Corporate level to
different Units and Functions across the Organisation.
o Another source for KPAs are the functional role & responsibility being
discharged as Unit Head, Functional Head, Head of Department, etc. In
addition, KPAs could be arrived from the Business Plans for the
Unit/Function, Corporate Plan, Recommendations of Study Groups, Task
Forces, R&M Plans, Long Term and Short Term Plans etc. These are only
indicative.
o The various activities/sub-activities associated with KPAs should be
separately discussed including ‘Measures/Standards’ for each of them.
Therefore a separate diary for details and for monitoring periodically is
preferred.
o KPA-Measures should be preferably fixed on a reasonable range of
performance target instead of a fixed target, so that other factors affecting
performance could be accounted for and a reasonable assessment is
made.
 o The range of performance measurement could be ‘Good’ which amounts to
meeting the ‘Norm’, ‘Very Good’ would be a range of performance which
would be superior to the ‘Norm’ but cannot be classified as ‘Outstanding’.
The range of measure for ‘Outstanding’ is a stretch target which could be
achieved by best efforts, optimal utilisation of resources.
Similarly, allotment of marks should be on a range linked to the extent of
achievement of targets whether it is in range of ‘Good’, ‘Very Good’ or
‘Outstanding’. For performance below ‘Good’ also, marks are allotted
commensurate with performance level.

o Therefore, at the beginning of the year, it is essential to discuss the KPAs,

Measures and Marks awarded to different KPAs by the Reporting Officer
with the appraisee for 1st half-year performance.
o Similarly, at the beginning of 2nd half-year, the KPAs and Measures are
assessed and Marks allotted for the 1st half-year, and a new set of KPAs,
Measures and Marks are arrived at for 2nd half-year Performance period.

 ALTERATION OF KPA’s UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Circumstances may arise when due to the revision of business plans, certain
KPAs may lose relevance in spite of the best efforts put in by the appraisee, as
the target may be abandoned. For example, new project identified may be
abandoned and or may be relegated to lower priority after substantial activities
undertaken. Under such circumstances, the following system may be followed:
o If the KPA was substantially achieved before abandoning of the target/the area
of activities, then the appraisee should be assessed based on the results
achieved by him. Suitable remark should be reflected in the achievement
column, against the KPA and fair assessment of KPA may be made and
marks awarded judiciously.

o In circumstances when a person’s responsibility gets changed due to

addition/deletion of certain assignment, then assessment should be carried out
and marks awarded to each of the KPA which loses relevance in the revised
responsibility, provided a minimum of 3 months has been spent in the
appraisal year. If the change is earlier to 3 months replace KPAs by new set
of KPAs commensurate with revised responsibility.
o In cases where the person is transferred out of the present role after
completion of 3 months of the appraisal year then his Performance
Management System should be completed for that period before release. On
his joining the new place of posting, the KPAs for his new responsibility is
again discussed and arrived at his new place of posting.
 o In case any KPAs lose relevance within three months of the commencement of
the relevant half year the same may be replaced by a new set of KPAs by
following all the systems provided for evolving KPAs, measurement, etc.

 PART II : COMPETENCIES
 EVALUATION OF COMPETENCIES:
o The System envisages evaluation of competencies of the executives on two
broad categories namely, Technical/Functional Areas and Managerial
Competencies.
o The purpose of this Part is to identify whether the Appraisee has the right
balance between functional and managerial competencies in order to find
roles for which he can be groomed like ‘Generalist’ or ‘Specialist’ and
provide suitable career paths based on the competencies.
o To reward Appraisees not solely on the performance but also on the
competencies, as performance may be influenced by several other factors
on which executive has no direct control
o Competency based evaluation would help the organisation to take
systematic steps for bridging the competency gaps.

 COMPETENCIES AND RATINGS:

o Competencies: The competencies and the ascribed meaning/ability to be

assessed are as under:
A. Technical knowledge :
Knowledge and understanding of all aspects of the work of the
organization, as well as the present assignment which the excutive is
presently doing.

B. Business attitude:
The ability to identify opportunities, use data for making effective
business decisions on time, identify the strengths and weaknesses of
the existing system and take action as required. Considers all
departmental/division’s performance in line with the targets and goals of
the company.
 C. Strategic thinking:
The ability to understand situations and to generate alternate strategies,
plans and tactics. Capacity to conceptualise long term role based on
operational analysis and assessment of policies and procedures having
impact on business strategies of the company.

D. Resource management:
The ability to allocate and optimally utilize the resources in a cost
effective way.

E. Communication skills:
Ability to communicate ideas and information effectively through both
written and oral presentations, to convert ideas into action plans after
ensuring their acceptability to present company’s policies and
objectives to groups within and outside.

F. Systematic thinking:
Ability to see linkages between situations that are not obviously related,
using common sense, past experience and rules to identify key
underlying issues in their proper perspective for taking necessary
action.

G. Interpersonal competence:
To promote open and constructive relationships with all; the ability to
understand the nature and dynamics of interaction with others;
respecting individuals as they are and exhibiting tolerance for
differences and disagreements based on rational and objective
grounds.

H. Empowering skills:
The ability to delegate authority to the subordinates while retaining
responsibility thus, contributing to the development of the subordinates.
Willingness to consult and involve subordinates in decision making
thereby espousing confidence in subordinates.

o RATINGS OF COMPETENCIES:
  The competencies are evaluated annually on a five-point rating scale-
1,2,3,4 & 5 - the rating 1 being the lowest end of the scale and 5 being the
highest on the scale.
 Based on the competencies observed, the Reporting Officer would classify
each competency on a scale of 1 to 5.

 The Reporting Officer would discuss each competency (A to H) with the

Appraisee and plot the rating.
 The competencies all together have a weightage of 20% in the total
Performance Appraisal.
 The aggregate of the rating of each competency is to be arrived at the
bottom of the ratings column. Thereafter the aggregate rating is to be
converted to marks out of 20 using the Conversion formula (based on the
maximum attainable marks of 40 i.e. 8 competencies x 5 maximum rating =
40).
 The marks so obtained out of 20 is indicated in the Box at the bottom of
Part II.

 The Part II is duly signed by the Appraisee and the Reporting Officer.
 The review of competencies and completion of Part II for the previous
appraisal year is done at the end of Appraisal year, not later than 15th
April.

 PART III : VALUES

 VALUE ACTUALISATION:
o Adoption of the Company’s Core Values in the business dealings is one of the
essential duties of employees at all levels.
o Especially Senior Executives who occupy leadership positions in the
Company, have a major role in the actualisation of Core Values by being ‘Role
Models’ in observing and practising them and thereby leading by example.
o Hence due emphasis is laid on the Core Values demonstrated by the
executive in his day-to-day business dealings and 15% weightage has been
ascribed in the Performance Appraisal to the process of Value actualisation
exhibited by the executive.

 COMPANY VALUES AND RATINGS:

o The Corporate Values ‘COMIT’ and the indicative observable behavior in
respect of each value is as under:

A. Customer focus:
 The Executive has conviction that the customer (Internal & External) is the
center of all activity; he is courteous, sincere, patient and sensitive to the
customers and honours commitments on time.

B. Organizational pride:
The Executive holds the company in high esteem and rejoices in belonging
to it; he demonstrates loyalty and commitment to the organisation and has
a sense of ownership and belongingness with it.

C. Mutual respect and trust:

The Executive has high regard for and faith in the fellow organisational
members; he believes in collaboration and openness and has good team
spirit.

D. Initiative and Speed:

The Executive believes in taking the first step, thinking new and ahead
and being swift without compromising on quality; he is creative and
innovative and has the willingness to experiment and take risks.

E. Total Quality:
The Executive believes in pursuing excellence in all spheres of activity; he
makes continuous efforts in improving standards of performance, systems
and processes.

o Each value has to be evaluated through discussion on a rating scale of 1 to 5

the rating 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest.

o The Reporting Officer would evaluate the Appraisee on each of the Value and
mark the rating for each value. The ratings are then aggregated at the bottom
of the rating column out of maximum of 25.
o The ratings so obtained would be converted to 15 marks by the conversion
formula given.
o The marks obtained out of 15 marks is written in the Box.
o The Part III is signed jointly by the Reporting Officer and the Appraisee.
o The evaluation of Values and completion of Part III for the previous appraisal
year is done at the end of Performance Appraisal Year, not later than 15th
April.

 PART IV : POTENTIAL APPRAISAL

 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL:
o Potential is a component related to “Competencies” of Part II. It seeks to
achieve one of the major objectives of the Performance Appraisal System,
namely evaluating the suitability of the executive to assume higher
responsibilities along the hierarchy.

o In due course of time, the appraisal of ‘Potential Component’ may be done

through Assessment Centres or with the help of such other means, to make
the appraisal more broad-based.

o The personality profile of each individual based on the Assessment Centre or

with the help of other process can become available to the Reporting Officer to
enable him to evaluate potential of the appraisee with more objectivity.

o That would also provide a more detailed prescription of ‘development’

initiatives. This would be possible once the Assessment Centres or any such
other systems are institutionalised and all senior executives are covered.

o Pending institutionalisation of such systems, the Reporting Officer would

objectively evaluate the potential of the assessee based on factual information
observed during assessment year.

 RATINGS ON POTENTIAL:
o The following generic competencies are covered for potential evaluation of
Executives :
A. Team Building:
The executive demonstrates ability to cooperate and interact with others
in a team environment, is able to work collaboratively instead of
competitively, is able to reorganize his own department while managing
diverse and divergent views without loosing sight of the objectives.

B. Conceptual Ability:
The executive demonstrates the ability to understand and forecast
results, sensitive to environment, able to respond to situations quickly
and predict changes.

C. Strategic Vision:
The executive demonstrates the ability to build future scenarios and to
handle change with a focus on long term issues .

D. Leadership Abilities:
 The executive demonstrates ability for guiding and facilitating decision
making for achieving goals, generates enthusiasm, pride and
commitment amongst all levels of the organisation, setting an example
for others to emulate.

o The evaluation of ‘Generic Competencies’ for potential Appraisal is done

through discussion on a rating scale of 1 to 5. Rating 1 being lowest and
rating 5 being the highest.

o The evaluation of ‘Generic Competencies’ for potential Appraisal is done

through discussion on a rating scale of 1 to 5. Rating 1 being lowest and
rating 5 being the highest.

o The evaluation of potential is done on each competency and rating given

against each in the rating column by the Reporting Officer.

o The aggregate of all the comptencies A to D would be arrived at by totalling all

the ratings. This would be out of 20 marks.

o The Potential Appraisal has a weightage of 15% in the total Performance

Appraisal.

o The rating on potential out of 15 marks is obtained by using the Conversion

formula at the bottom of Part IV.

o The marks so obtained out of 15 marks is written in the Box.

o The Part IV is jointly signed by the Reporting Officer and the Appraisee at the
bottom of the page.

o The appraisal of this Part for the previous appraisal year is done at the end of
Performance Appraisal year, not later than 15th April.
 PERFORMANCE AND POTENTIAL PROFILE
 FINAL MARKS SCORED:
o The Part V would sum up all marks scored for the Performance Appraisal year .

o The marks scored for Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV is transferred to this
section and entered against respective item.
 o The aggregate of the marks scored is arrived at by adding all marks scored for
different components

o This would form the Final score of Performance & Potential Appraisal rating of
the executive out of 100 marks.

 COUNTERSIGNING THE APPRAISAL:

o The Appraisal of the Reporting Officer is duly countersigned by the Reviewing
Officers above in the hierarchy.

o The Reviewing Officers in the hierarchy would go through the performance of

the appraisee in totality as finally brought out by the Reporting Officer inter-alia
indicating details of marks scored under Performance, Competencies, Values
and Potential before countersigning & offering comments if any .

o In case the first Reviewing Officer in hierarchy feels the necessity of reviewing
the appraisal written by the Reporting Officer he would have a detailed
discussion with the Reporting Officer on each of the items and arrive at a fair
decision accounting for the views of Reporting Officer. Thereafter he should
offer comments in the relevant column including different ratings for each of
the items duly substantiated by the facts.

o Similarly if the Second Reviewing Officer has any comments with respect to
the performance and other parameters of evaluation he would duly discuss
with the first Reviewing Officer and arrive at a fair decision, accounting for the
views of the first Reviewing Officer. Thereafter offer comments and ratings on
the Performance of the appraisee in the relevant column.

o Similarly, countersigning authority who is the final authority will offer

considered comments in the final appraisal by him taking into account the
appraisal of the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officers. The decision of
the countersigning authority is final.

o The Reviewing Officer / countersigning officer while undertaking review would

be guided by such factors like situations/circumstances that may have bearing
on the overall performance evaluation of the appraisee. He would endeavour
to have uniform approach with respect to assessments brought out by different
Reporting Officers under his control.
 REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES OF THE SYSTEM:
 Implementation of Performance Management System is very sensitive and
needs to be done with utmost objectivity. Difficulties may crop up in its
implementation while completing the Form.
 Any difficulty or difference that may arise between the Reporting Officer and
the Appraisee in the process of implementation of the system needs to be
sorted out through mandatory intervention of the immediate Reviewing Officer
in the hierarchy.

 PITFALLS TO BE AVOIDED:
o The fact that the Performance Management System is implemented by human
beings, there is likelihood of prejudice, bias and other pitfalls that may influence
appraisal. It is important that one should be aware of the problems that can affect
the validity and dependability of the Appraisal System.

o HALO EFFECT:
It is the tendency to base the overall assessment of an individual on the basis
of a specific trait/characteristic of the appraisee.

o BIAS:
Many a times, appraisal may become invalidated because of biases carried as
an appraiser. Biases may creep in for several reasons such as social
background, regional or religious backgrounds, inter-personal conflicts, dislike
etc.

o INFLATION OF RATING:
It is a tendency to inflate ratings. Some appraisers may resort to this for
sometime, but some are generally prone to give inflated ratings without giving
regard to Performance.

o LENIENCY ERROR
o STICTNESS ERROR
o TENDENCY
o SPILL OVER EFFECT
o RECENCY EFFECT

 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM:

 (i) Regional HR and Unit HR are responsible for implementation by
communicating down the line and facilitating smooth implementation by
extending logistic support, monitoring and retrieval of completed form.
 
(ii) Regional Head and Project Head would facilitate implementation by
monitoring progress, remove difficulties and ensure completion of appraisal
report and sending to Corporate Center by 15th May every year.

(iii) The primary responsibility for making available of Performance Appraisal

Form and setting the process in motion rests jointly with the Reporting
Officer and the Appraisee as per the time frame provided in the System.

 GENERAL

 PERFORMANCE DISCUSSION:
o Performance discussion is one of the important activities to be undertaken by
the Reporting Officer with the Appraisee. The process of discussion needs to
be given utmost importance and carried out in a conducive atmosphere in
order to remove any anxiety or tension in the Appraisee.
o The performance discussion calls for creating conducive atmosphere by
putting the Appraisee at ease and hence exclusive time and energy is to be
spent on this important activity of discussion and feedback.

o The Reporting Officer need to establish rapport with the Appraisee by

spending initially 5-10 minutes for discussion on positive aspects,
accomplishments, understanding the problems faced by the appraisee and
actions taken by him for overcoming the same.
o The process of performance discussion is to enable the Reporting Officer to
gather all possible data with respect to performance viz., positive and negative
aspects, situations which contributed to the performance etc. Therefore,
active listening is essential. The Reporting Officer would facilitate the
Appraisee to reflect on the performance and on related issues .

 FEEDBACK
 (i) Providing performance feedback is a delicate matter and the Reporting
Officer should lead the performance discussion to create a condition for
providing Performance Feedback in the best possible manner.
(ii) The feedback should be focused on the specific performance actions and
not on the personality of the assesse similarly, feedback should be a regular
feature of performance review rather than reserving it for the end of the
performance year. Therefore regular performance monitoring review and
feedback should be carried out during each half year.

(iii) The continuous feedback based on the facts gathered during the period
would provide adequate opportunity to the assesses to take corrective steps
during the remaining part of the performance period.

(iv) Feedback should be aimed more at improving and developing the person
and should be provided with sufficient descriptive way based on data
collected in a non-hurting manner.

CHANGES MADE IN PACE

 The weightings for E1 – E4 has changed. E1 – E5 shall continue to be in the same role
band.
 In E1 – E4, the managerial competencies shall be referred as executive competencies.
 E6 and above, the weightings shall remain the same.

E5
E1-E3 E4 E5 E1-E3 E4
SNo. PMS Parameter

Existing Revised

1. KPA 65 65 65 80 75 65

2 (a) Functional 10 10 10 10 10 10
Competency
Assessment
 2 (b) Executive/Manager 10 10 10 05 05 10
ial Competency
Assessment

3 Core Values 05 05 05 05 05 05
Assessment

4 Potential Assessment 10 10 10 Nil 05 10

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

 E1 – E4 : only 8 competencies.
 Potential component in E1 – E3 removed.
 The Norms for KPAs (Mandatory):
 KPA measure can only be one of the three viz., Percentage (%), Time & Number
(Nos.).
 The number of KPA indices should not be more than eight and the number of
constituents of KPAs should not exceed thirty in all including the common indices.
 Each KPA should carry atleast 3 marks .
 No KPA constituents should have marks in decimals such as 3.5 or 4.5
 E1 to E4 executives shall have only one common index – Development Index
(Development Index means à any effort by the individual contributing towards
professional and organizational development such as QC, PC, NOCET, AIMA, ISO,
5-S, paper presentation, innovations, teaching assignments, etc)
 E5 to E9 executives to have atleast two common indices out of four (HRM Index,
Special Project Index, Cost Optimization Index & CSR Index).

 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT :

Second level review by PMC member:

 It has been decided to bring another level of assessment prior to the conduct of
PMC. This second reviewing officer shall also be a member of the PMC and shall
ensure a normal distribution pattern in the assessment of executives working in his
domain prior to the final assessment done by the PMC.
 Every level of assessment shall be done after discussion and consultation with the
immediately next lower level of reviewing officer / reporting officer. Sectional Head, if
 any, in the hierarchy before the second level review shall also be required to sign the
report.

PMC member as reviewing officer.

Earlier Revised

Presently, in several cases such as E5/E6 If the PMC member himself is the reporting
level executives directly reporting to ED who officer, the
is in turn also the PMC member, the forms
are being put up to Directors/CMD for review report need not be sent to any authority above
whereas in such cases the Performance the PMC level for review i.e., cases of E1 to E4
Management Committee consist of members reporting to GM/ED or E5/E6 reporting to ED
of ED/GM level. need not be sent to any higher authority above
the level of PMC.

 NORMALIZATION:

Earlier Revised

As per Clause 6.4 of the PACE policy (Sub The Clause 6.4 of the PACE Policy (Sub
Clause 6), “the final scores and the Clause 6) is re-worded as under:
reasons for adjustments, (if made), are “The final scores and the reasons for
documented in the PMS form in the section adjustments, (if made), are documented in
provided. An indicative list of reasons for the PMS form in the section provided. The
PMS score adjustments is provided in the specific reasons for change in scores
annexure.” which are 5% or more than those awarded
by the reporting officer will be recorded.”
 FEEDBACK - changes

FINAL OUTPUT
PERFORMANCE MGT.
COMMITEE Top 30%

Middle 65%

Bottom 05%

HUMAN RESOURCES

 Final score
REPORTING OFFICER
 Development feedback

EXECUTIVE

Reporting officers to be provided training on performance

feedback and counseling skills

 From 8th January, 2010, PACE became online and is now known as E – PACE or E –
PMS.

 For E1 – E5 level executives E – PACE started on 8 th January, 2010.

  For E6 & above level executives it started on 1 st April, 2010.

 ESS – SAP is being used for E – PMS.

 Benefits of E – PMS:

 24 * 7 availability of forms.

 Review progress at any time

 Automatic calculation of marks

 Access through any NTPC location

 Easy monitoring for adherence of PACE calendar.

 Online help member.

SAMPLING DESIGN
For completion of the research work a survey was conducted. Following is the description of
the Sample Design considered for the survey:
Sample Unit:
The sample unit constitutes the Executive Employees of NTPC of the level E1 – E7.
Sample Size:
The sample size, which has selected for this project is 300. The sample size constitutes of
the executive employees of NTPC.
Sampling Technique:
The sampling technique used in the study is ‘random sampling technique’.

Collection of Data:
The method of Data collection used in the study is ‘Survey/ Feedback’ methods.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT:
The research instrument for the study is ‘Questionnaire/interview’.
 DATA USED IN STUDY
The data collected for the purpose of the study has been collected from two main sources;
they are primary data and secondary data;

(a) Primary data:

The primary data will be collected through a Questionnaire and personal interaction. The
data will be collected through questionnaire method because exact and first hand
information can be gained. This is more helpful rather than adopting any other method.

The primary data is collected by having personal interaction with the executive
employees of NTPC – EOC.

A detailed questionnaire was given to the employees which was the primary source of
my study.

o The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions

o The employees were requested to select the answer which suited him/her the
o The total sample of the employees survey was 300 respondents

(b) Secondary Data:

The secondary data comprises of information from internal records of the organization,
text books, journals and various literature available in and outside of the corporation,
presentation reports on various topics, standing orders.

This is the data which is already available, published or unpublished and is collected
from the company records and manuals which are maintained by it.
 TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES USED FOR ANALYSIS

 MS Excel
 MS Word
 Pie – charts
Performance Management Resources:

Performance management encompasses the most important people issues in your

organization. Performance management includes the entire relationship you have with the
people you employ.

Performance management is the process of creating a work environment or setting in which

people are enabled to perform to the best of their abilities. Performance management is a
whole work system that begins when a job is defined as needed and expectations are
clearly communicated to the employee. It ends when an employee leaves your organization.

Many writers and consultants are using the term “performance management” as a
substitution for the traditional performance appraisal system. I encourage you to think of the
term in this broader work system context. A performance management system includes the
following components.

 Develop clear job descriptions.

  Select appropriate people with an appropriate selection process.

 Negotiate requirements and accomplishment-based performance standards,

outcomes, and measures.

 Provide effective orientation, education, and training.

 Provide on-going coaching and feedback.

 Conduct quarterly performance development discussions.

 Design effective compensation and recognition systems that reward people for their
contributions.

 Provide promotional/career development opportunities for staff.

 Assist with exit interviews to understand WHY valued employees leave the
organization.

Intrigued about performance management and its potential contribution within your
organization? Take a look at the rest of this performance management special resource for
all of the current information about performance management.

January 25, 2007 - A recent survey conducted by the Institute for Corporate Productivity
(i4cp, formerly the Human Resource Institute) in conjunction with HR.com suggests that it is
futile for an organization to seek the 'one silver bullet' that will revitalize its performance
management (PM) system.

Mark Vickers, senior analyst with i4cp said:

"That bullet doesn't exist. That is, there is no single PM practice that can transform an
ineffective system into a good one. Performance management systems are just that -
systems. They require the coordination of multiple key practices. The more of these
practices that are in place, the more likely a performance management system is to be seen
as effective."

Based on data from 1031 respondents, The 2006 Performance Management Survey
indicates that there is significant scope for improvement in the performance management
systems of many companies. Only 8 per cent said that their PM process contributes to
individual performance in a significant way, 45 per cent said that it does contribute but
requires improving, while 47 per cent were not sure if their PM process makes any
contribution. While most companies are facing serious challenges with regard to their PM
systems, many seem aware of which aspects are under-performing.
Correlating performance management processes and the overall perceived effectiveness of
their systems produced a list of nine key practices. The survey concludes that PM systems
are more likely to be seen as effective when they include the following:

1. Plans for helping employees develop in the work period after the appraisal.
2. Ongoing goal review and feedback from managers.
3. Training for managers on how to conduct a performance appraisal meeting.
4. Metrics of the quality of performance appraisals.
5. Ways of addressing and resolving poor performance.
6. Appraisal information that isn't limited to the judgment of supervisors.
7. A PM system that is consistent across the whole organization.
8. Some form of multi-rater feedback.
9. Employees can expect feedback on their performance more often than once a year.

Kevin Oakes, i4cp's CEO, commented:

"Performance management tends to be a work in progress. PM technology is increasing in

popularity, but without a solid process already in place it's not going to make a significant
difference. The good news is that the data shows that many companies today are getting
more serious about implementing tighter performance management processes."

The Performance Development Process (PDP) Meeting:

 Establish a comfortable, private setting and rapport with the staff person.
 Discuss and agree upon the objective of the meeting, to create a performance
development plan.
 The staff member discusses the achievements and progress he has accomplished
during the quarter.
 The staff member identifies ways in which he would like to further develop his
professional performance, include training, assignments, and new challenges and so
on.
 The supervisor discusses performance for the quarter and suggests ways in which the
staff member might further develop his performance.
 Add the supervisor's thoughts to the employee's selected areas of development and
improvement.
 Discuss areas of agreement and disagreement, and reach consensus.
 Examine job responsibilities for the coming quarter and in general.
 Agree upon standards for performance for the key job responsibilities.
 Set goals for the quarter.
  Discuss how the goals support the accomplishment of the organization's business plan,
the department's objectives and so on.
 Agree upon a measurement for each goal.
 Assuming performance is satisfactory; establish a development plan with the staff
person that helps him grow professionally in ways important to him.
 If performance is less than satisfactory, develop a written performance improvement
plan, and schedule more frequent feedback meetings.
 Remind the employee of the consequences connected with continued poor
performance.
 The supervisor and employee discuss employee feedback and constructive
suggestions for the supervisor and the department.
 Discuss anything else the supervisor or employee would like to discuss, hopefully,
maintaining the positive and constructive environment established thus far, during the
meeting.
 Mutually sign the performance development tool to indicate the discussion has taken
place.
 End the meeting in a positive and supportive manner. The supervisor expresses
confidence that the employee can accomplish the plan and that the supervisor is
available for support and assistance.
 Set a time-frame for formal follow up, generally quarterly.

Following the Performance Development Process Meeting:

 If a performance Improvement plan was necessary, follow up at the designated times.

 Follow up with performance feedback and discussions regularly throughout the
quarter. (An employee should never be surprised about the content of feedback at
the performance development meeting.)
 The supervisor needs to keep commitments relative to the agreed upon development
plan, including time needed away from the job, payment for courses, agreed upon
work assignments and so on.
 The supervisor needs to act upon the feedback from departmental members and let
staff members know what has changed, based upon their feedback.
 Forward appropriate documentation to the Human Resources office and retain a copy
of the plan for easy access and referral.

Success Story in Performance Management:

For those of you who feel that the staff person who needs a formal Performance
Improvement Plan (PIP) will never succeed in your organization, here is a success story.
The newly promoted plant manager of a 150 person organization was failing miserably in
the key deliverables his boss expected. A formal PIP was developed that cited eleven goals
and their measures of success. A ninety day time frame was provided as these goals were
challenging and not short term.
The manager was given a strong, supportive environment in which his supervisor's
expectations for his success were a key factor. And guess what? He succeeded beyond our
wildest dreams. All he had needed was serious direction about what he needed to do to
succeed.

So, I am a believer in the power of a well-planned, measurable PIP that is reinforced by

positive and expressed supervisory support and encouragement.

Performance Management: Performance Improvement Plan

The Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is designed to facilitate constructive discussion

between a staff member and his or her supervisor and to clarify the work performance to be
improved.

It is implemented, at the discretion of the supervisor, when it becomes necessary to help a

staff member improve his or her performance.

The PIP differs from the Performance Development Planning (PDP) process in the amount
and quantity of the detail. Assuming an employee is already participating in the company-
wide PDP process, the format and the expectation of the PIP should enable the supervisor
and staff member to communicate with a higher degree of clarity about specific
expectations. In general, people who are performing their jobs effectively, and meeting the
expectations of the PDP process, will not need to participate in a PIP.

In all cases, it is recommended that the supervisor’s supervisor and the Human Resources
department review the plan. This will ensure consistent and fair treatment of employees
across the company. The supervisor will monitor and provide feedback to the employee
regarding his or her performance on the PIP and may take additional disciplinary action, if
warranted, through the organization's Progressive Discipline Process, if necessary.

The supervisor should review the following six items with the employee when using the
document.

1. State performance to be improved; be specific and cite examples.

2. State the level of work performance expectation and that it must be performed on a
consistent basis.
3. Identify and specify the support and resources you will provide to assist the employee.
4. Communicate your plan for providing feedback to the employee. Specify meeting times,
with whom and how often. Specify the measurements you will consider in evaluating
progress.
5. Specify possible consequences if performance standards are not met.
6. Provide sources of additional information such as the Employee Handbook
 
DIAGRAMMATICAL REPRESENTATION OF DATA

The data analysis has been done question wise as well as according to the grades of the
executive employees. The present study is carried out by administering questionnaire of 22
questions and a sample of 300 employees/respondents

Question – wise analysis

Q.1 The ability to deliver performance commitments strongly influences career

advancements at this organization.
 STRONGLY AGREE
11%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
19%

DISAGREE
12%

AGREE
35%

NETITHER A/D
22%

It is true that an employee’s ability to deliver performance commitments or say good

performance influences his / her career advancements. Through this pie chart we can
understand that whether the executive employees of NTPC also feel that their
performance commitments strongly influence their career advancements.

Out of 300 employees, 36% of them agree to the point that the ability to deliver
performance commitments strongly influences the career advancement at NTPC, and
11% of them actually strongly agree to this point. Only 12% of them disagree that it is
no so, and 19% strongly disagree. Rest of 22% of the 300 employees actually neither
disagrees nor do they agree to the fact. For them it’s the midway.

Q.2 My manager gives me regular performance feedback so that there are no

surprises at the end of the performance cycle.
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
12% 6%

DISAGREE
24% AGREE
37%

NETITHER A/D
21%

Managers should keep on giving feedback to their employees on their performance.

When asked the question that does there manager give them regular feedback on
their performance 37% of them agreed to this and 6% strongly agreed, so we can say
that 43% of the employees actually feel that yes their manager gives them regular
feedback. 24 % and 12% of the employees disagree and strongly disagree to this
point, i.e., in all 36% of them disagree that their manager doesn’t give them regular
feedbacks and they do get surprises at the end of the performance cycle due to this.
Rest 21% neither agree nor disagree.
Q.3 Career goals and performance gaps are considered while nominating
employees to any training program.
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 7%
16% AGREE
24%

DISAGREE
22%

NETITHER A/D
31%

The reason for nominating a employee for a training program is either his/her poor
performance or say the gaps between the standard performance and the actual
performance. The other reason is his/her career goals.

In this question 24% of the 300 employees agree that career goals and performance
gaps are considered while nominating the employees to any training program and 7%
strongly agree to the point, i.e. in total 31% of them do think that yes career goals and
performance is considered while nominating them for training. 22% and 16% of them
disagree and strongly disagree to the point respectively and think that it is not so. The
rest of 31% of the employees think neither way.

Q.4 HR is able to effectively answer system related queries put forward by me.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

12% 10%

AGREE
DISAGREE 25%
25%

NETITHER A/D
28%

HR is a important part of any organization. Therefore, it is very important that the HR

dept. of the organization works in the interests of the employees and helps them and
answers there related queries if any.

35% of the employees agree (25% - agree, 10% - strongly agree) that HR is able to
effectively answer their queries. 37% of the employees (25% - disagree, 12% - agree)
feel that HR does not effectively answer to their queries. The rest 28% of the
employees think neither way.
Q.5 there is regular documentation of individual’s work which can be easily be
referred to during annual performance appraisal.
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
13% 10%

AGREE
26%
DISAGREE
24%

NETITHER A/D
28%

It is also important that the work done by the employees should be documented
individually so that it can be later used for any sought of reference for performance
appraisal of the employees.

35% of the employees ( 25% - agree, 10% - strongly agree) that their work is
documented so that it can be referred for their performance appraisal. 37% of the
employees (24% - disagree, 13% - strongly disagree) feel that their work is not
documented regularly and therefore it effects their appraisal. 28% don’t feel either
way.

Q.6 my manager explains me the reasons for change in marks, if any, after
normalization.
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 10%
17%

AGREE
27%

DISAGREE
21%

NETITHER A/D
25%

A good manager should always encourage his co – workers to work effectively. For
encouraging them he/she needs to communicate with them. Communication with
them might also include explaining them the reasons for any sought of change in their
marks during the performance appraisal.

37% of the employees (27% - agree, 10% - strongly disagree) accept the point that
there manager does explain them the reasons for change in marks, if any, after
normalization. 38% of the employees (17% - strongly disagree, 21% - disagree) don’t
 think that their manager gives them the reason for any change in marks, if any. 25%
don’t think either way.

Q.7 I feel PMC marks are in line with my actual performance.

STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 7%
16%
AGREE
28%

DISAGREE
22%

NETITHER A/D
26%

35% of the employees (28% - agree, 7% - strongly agree) that there PMC marks are
in line with their actual performance. 39% of the employees (23% - disagree, 16% -
strongly disagree) feel that their PMC marks are not in line with their actual
performance. 26% of them feel neither way.

Q.8 my manger directly addresses issues of poor performance.

STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 7%
17%
AGREE
26%

DISAGREE
16%

NETITHER A/D
33%

As said earlier a good manager should always encourage and motivate his co –
workers to work effectively. A manager can also directly address issues of poor
performance to his/her employees without being rude.

33% of the executive employees (26% - agree, 7% - strongly disagree) feel that
manager directly addresses their issues of poor performance. 33% of the employees
(16% - disagree, 17% - strongly disagree) feel that their manager does not directly
address issue of poor performance with them. 34% of them feel neither way.
Q.9 my performance has a significant impact on my rewards.
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
13% 13%

DISAGREE
20%

AGREE
29%

NETITHER A/D
25%

Performance does have a significant impact on the rewards which includes the
incentives and bonuses given to the employees.

Out of 300 executive employees 42% i.e. (29% - agree and 13% - strongly agree)
feel that their performance actually has an impact on the rewards and incentives that
they get. 33% of the employees (20% - disagree, 13% - strongly disagree) feel that
the reward system is not based on the performance. 25% of them feel neither way.

Q.10 my manger is able to effectively explain my performance gaps to me.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

13% 9%

DISAGREE AGREE
22% 29%

NETITHER A/D
27%

Again this question deals with how much a manager is able to motivate his
employees. This also includes explaining the employees about the difference or the
gaps between the standard and the actual performance.

38% of the executive employees (29% - agree, 9% - strongly agree) feel that their
manager explains them and helps them with the gaps in the performance. 35% of the
employees (22% - disagree, 13% - strongly disagree) feel that their manger does not
help them in understanding their performance gaps. 27% of them don’t feel either
way.
Q.11 HR helps me in understanding the PACE process.
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 10%
16%

DISAGREE AGREE
16% 28%

NETITHER A/D
29%

As said earlier HR is a important part of any organization. HR should help its

employees in understanding the different processes related to HR in the organization.

38% of the employees (28% - agree, 10% - strongly agree) think that the HR dept.
does actually help them in understanding the PACE process. 33% of them ( 17% -
disagree, 16%- strongly disagree) think that the HR dept. does not help in
understanding the PACE process. 29% of them feel neither way.

Q.12 my manger takes time to help each employee achieve their best.
STRONGLY AGREE
12%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
19%

DISAGREE
14%
AGREE
34%

NETITHER A/D
21%

Again this question is related to how much a manger contribute towards the
betterment of its employees and how much he helps them in achieving their best.

46% of them (34% - agree, 12% - strongly agree) feel that their manager takes out
time to help each employee achieve their best. 33% of them (14% - disagree, 19% -
strongly disagree) feel that their manager does not take time to help them to achieve
their best. 21% of them feel neither way.

Q.13 I set my KPA’s at the beginning of performance cycle.

 STRONGLY DISAGREE
10%
DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
16% 18%

NETITHER A/D
16%
AGREE
40%

This question is related to how much a employee is himself interested in bringing up

his career. Setting up the KPA’s and then working according to the set KPA’s will
surely help in bringing up his / her performance.

58% of the executives (40% - agree, 18% - strongly agree) agree that they set their
KPA’s and the targets at the very beginning of their performance cycle. Only 26% of
them say that they don’t do so. 16% of them said neither do they agree on this point,
nor do they totally disagree.

Q.14 my manger helps me understand that how my work contributes to

organization’s goals.
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
12% 13%

DISAGREE
18%

AGREE
30%

NETITHER A/D
26%

This question again deals with the manager’s contribution towards the betterment of
the employees career.

44% of the executives (31% - agree, 13% - strongly agree) agree that their manager
helps them in understanding how their work contributes to organizational goals. 20%
of them don’t agree to this point and 26% feel neither way.
Q.15 HR provides regular training and reading material to help employees
understand PMS better.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

14% 10%

DISAGREE
15%
AGREE
29%

NETITHER A/D
31%

This question again tells us how much important a role of HR is an organization.

Providing regular training and reading material to the employees in understanding the
PMS is also an important role that a good HR plays.

According to this pie – chart 39% (10% - strongly agree, 29% - agree) think that the
HR dept. at NTPC provides regular training and reading material to help employees
understand the PMS process better. Whereas, 30% of the employees (14% - strongly
disagree, 16% - disagree) feel just the opposite. The rest of 31% of the employees
don’t think either way.

Q.16 My manager inspires me to higher levels of performance.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
12% 13%

DISAGREE
18%

AGREE
30%

NETITHER A/D
27%

According to this pie – chart 43% of the employees (13% - strongly agree, 30% -
agree) have said that their managers do inspire them to achieve higher levels of
performance. Comparatively only 30% (12% - strongly disagree, 18% - disagree) say
that it is not so and their manager doesn’t help them with improving their
performance. The rest 27% feel neither way.

Q.17 PACE form has a simple and practical format.

 STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
13% 11%

DISAGREE
20%
AGREE
30%

NETITHER A/D
26%

41% of the employees feel that the PACE form has a simple and a practical format.
Whereas 33% of the employees feel just the opposite. 26% of them feel neither way.

Q.18 I am rewarded fairly for the contributions I make to the organization’s success.
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 10%
16%

AGREE
29%
DISAGREE
21%

NETITHER A/D
24%

This question deals with how or what an employee feels about the contribution of an
organization in the betterment of his career.

According to the pie – chart only 39% (10% - strongly agree, 29% - agree) agree to
the point that they are rewarded fairly for their contributions towards the success of
the organization. 37% of the employees (16% - strongly disagree, 21% - disagree)
feel just the opposite. 24% feel neither way.
Q.19 the performance assessment process helps me improve my performance.

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

13% 9%

AGREE
27%
DISAGREE
22%

NETITHER A/D
29%

36% of the employees (9% - strongly agree, 27% - agree) feel that the assessment
process actually helps them in improving their performance. Whereas 35% of the
employees (13% - strongly disagree, 22% - disagree) disagree that the performance
assessment process at NTPC helps them with the improvement in their performance.

Q.20 managers jointly set goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of
targets.
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
13% 12%

DISAGREE
19%

AGREE
32%

NETITHER A/D
23%

44%(12% - strongly agree, 32% - agree) of the employees feel that their managers
help them in setting their goals according to the set KPA’s and the targets to be
achieved by the employee. Whereas 32% of the employees (13% - strongly disagree,
19% - disagree) think that the manager does not help him/her with setting up the
goals for the performance. 24% of them don’t feel either way.
Q.21 individual’s career goals, and not only organization’s goals, are taken into
account while setting KPA’s.
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 9%
19%
AGREE
25%

DISAGREE
21%

NETITHER A/D
26%

Through this question we can understand that while setting the KPA’s or the targets
to be achieved by the employee it is important that not only the organizational goals
are to be kept in mind, but also the individual’s career goals should be kept in mind.

Only 34% of the executive employees (9% - strongly agree, 25% - agree) think that
individual career goals are kept in mind while setting up the KPA’s. Whereas 40% of
them (19% - strongly disagree, 21% - disagree) feel that the organization goals are
given more importance than individual career goals. 26% of them feel neither way.

Q.22 the system of Appeals has helped in making PACE process more transparent.
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 10%
19%

AGREE
25%

DISAGREE
14%

NETITHER A/D
31%

Once the PACE process is completed, if employees have any problem or they
disagree with the feedback or the marks they have got for the appraisal and need a
clarification for the same, then for such cases there is a system of appeals.
Employees who have problem with their feedback can fill up a appeal form. 35% of
the employees agree that the appeal system makes the PACE process more
 transparent, whereas 33% of the employees feel just the opposite, 32% of the
employee feel neither way.

GRADE WISE ANALYSIS

Q.1 The ability to deliver performance commitments strongly influences career

advancements at this organization.

E1 - Q1 E2 - Q1

STRONGLY AGREE
16%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
27%
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 10%
17%

DISAGREE AGREE AGREE

14% 28% 27%
DISAGREE
11%
NEITHER A/D
20%

NEITHER A/D
31%

E3 - Q1 E4 - Q1

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

13%
18%
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 8%
11% DISAGREE
13%
DISAGREE
8%
AGREE
30%

NEITHER A/D
26% AGREE NEITHER A/D
48% 28%

E5 - Q1 E6 - Q1
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
3%
10%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 22%
28%

AGREE DISAGREE
31% 6%
AGREE
50%

DISAGREE NEITHER A/D

21% 19%

NEITHER A/D
10%
 E7 - Q1

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

15%
18%

DISAGREE
15%

NEITHER A/D AGREE

18% 33%

 E1 – out of 29 employees who filled up the questionnaire, 38% of them (10% -

strongly agree, 28% - agree) agree that individual’s ability to deliver performance
commitments strongly influences career advencents at NTPC. Whereas 31% of the
employee (17% - strongly disagree, 14% - disagree) disagree with this point. The rest
31% don’t feel either way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees who filled up the questionnaire, 43% of them (16% -

strongly agree, 27% - agree) agree that individual’s ability to deliver performance
commitments strongly influences career advancements at NTPC. Wheraes, 38% of
them (27% - strongly disagree, 11% - disagree) disagree and feel just the opposite.
The rest 19% netither agree nor disagree on this point.

 E3 – out of 65 employees who filled up the questionnaire, 55% of the employees

agree to the point that good performance influences career advancements at NTPC.
Whereas only 19% feel the opposite. The rest 26% of the E3 level employees feel
neither way.

 E4 – Out of 40 employees who filled up the questionnaire, 42% of the employees

agree to the pont that good performance influences career advancements at NTPC.
Wheras 31% of the employees feel just the opposite. The rest 27% of the employee
feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees who filled up the questionnaire, 41% of the employees

agree to the point, whereas 49% of the empoyees feel that at NTPC performance ha
no influence on career. 10% of them don’t feel either way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees who filled up the questionnaire, 53% of the employees

agree that the perfromance of an individual does have an impact on his/ her career.
Wheraes only 28% feel just the opposite. The rest 19% of the employees feel neither
way.
 E7 – out of 39 employees of this level who filled up the questionnaire, 51% of the
employees agree that the performance of an individual does have an impact on his/
her career. Whereas 31% of the employee feel that it is not so, the rest 18% of th
employees don’t feel either way.

E1 - Q2 Q.2 My manager gives me regular performance

STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
21%
3%
feedback so that there are no surprises at the end of the
AGREE
34%
performance cycle.

E2 - Q2
DISAGREE
28%
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 4%
14%
AGREE
33%
NEITHER A/D
14%
DISAGREE
25%

NEITHER A/D
25%

E3 - Q2 E4 - Q2

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

6% 8% STRONGLY DISAGREE 5%
DISAGREE 15%
22%

DISAGREE
18%
AGREE
43%

AGREE
45%
NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
20% 20%

E5 - Q2 E6 - Q2
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 5% AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
15% 21% 9% 9%
DISAGREE
19%

AGREE
DISAGREE 44%
NEITHER A/D
33% 19%
NEITHER A/D
26%
 E7 - Q2
STRONGLY DISAGREESTRONGLY AGREE
8% 8%

DISAGREE
24%

AGREE
39%

NEITHER A/D
21%

 E1 – Out of 29 employees who filled up the questionnaire, 37% of the employees say
that their manager does give their regular performance feedback, whereas 49% of the
employees feel just the opposite.

 E2 – out of 57 employees at this level who filled up the questionnaire, in total 36% of
them said that their manager gives them regular feedback on their performance,
whereas 39% of the employees said that the manager does not give any feedback. 25%
felt neither way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees at this level who filled up the questionnaire, in total 53% of
them agree that their managers give them regular feedback on their performance,
whereas 27% of the employees feel just the opposite. 20% of them feel neither way.

 E4 – out of 40 employees at this level who filled up the questionnaire, in total 47% agree
that their managers give them regular feedback on the performance, whereas in total
33% of them disagree to this point, and the rest of 20% feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees at this level who filled up the questionnaire, in total only 26%
agree that their managers give them regular performance feedback , whereas 48% of the
employees disagree that managers give them regular feedback. The rest of 26% don’t
feel either way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees who filled up the questionnaire, in total 53% agree that their
managers do give them regular feedback, whereas 28% feel just the opposite. The rest
of 19% feel neither way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees who filled up the questionnaire, in total 47% agree that their
managers do give them regular feedback, whereas, 32% of them feel just the opposite.
The rest of 21% feel neither way.

Q.3 Career goals and performance gaps are considered while nominating
employees to any training program.
 E1 - Q3

STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 7%
14%
E2 - Q3
AGREE
31%
DISAGREE
21%
STRONGLY AGREE
7%
AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 20%
16%

NEITHER A/D DISAGREE

28% 21%

NEITHER A/D
36%

E3 - Q3 E4 - Q3

STRONGLY AGREE
8%
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
11% 8% 20% AGREE
28%
DISAGREE
20% AGREE
30%
DISAGREE
13%

NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D 33%
31%

E6 - Q3
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE
5% 13% STRONGLY AGREE
6%
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
AGREE
21% 25%
25%

NEITHER A/D
26%

DISAGREE NEITHER A/D

22%
DISAGREE 22%
36%

E7 - Q3
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
8% 5%
AGREE
DISAGREE 26%
26%

NEITHER A/D
36%
 E1 – out of 29 employees, 38% of them agree that both career goals and performance
gaps are given importance while nominating him / her for a training program. Whereas,
35% of them feel just the opposite. 27% feel neither way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees, only 27% agree that both career goals and performance goals
are given importance while nominating an employee for a training program, whereas,
37% of them feel just the opposite. 36% feel neither way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 38% agree to the fact and 31% disagree. The rest 31% don’t
feel either way.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 34% agree to the fact that career goals and performance
goals are kept in mind while nominating an employee for a training program, whereas,
33% feel the opposite. The rest 33% feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees of this grade, only 18% agree that career goals and
performance goals are given importance while nominating an employee for a training
program, whereas 56% disagree with this point. The rest 26% don’t feel either way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees of this grade, 31% agree that career goals and performance
goals are given importance while nominating an employee for a training program,
whereas 47% of them feel just the opposite. The rest 22% feel neither way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees of this grade, 30% agree to the fact, whereas, 34% of the
employee disagree to the fact. The rest 36% feel neither way.

Q.4 HR is able to effectively answer system related queries put forward by me.

E1 - Q4 E2 - Q4
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
11% 9%
STRONGLY AGREE
17%
STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE
21% AGREE 23% AGREE
10% 30%

NEITHER A/D
28%
DISAGREE
28% NEITHER A/D
24%
 E4 - Q4
E3 - Q4
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 8%
11% 11% 13%
DISAGREE
17% DISAGREE
28% AGREE
21%

AGREE
37%
NEITHER A/D
31%
NEITHER A/D
25%

E5 - Q4 E6 - Q4
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
8% 13%

DISAGREE
28% AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
21% 6%

DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE

9% 22%
22%

NEITHER A/D
31%
NEITHER A/D
41%

E7 - Q4

STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEITHER A/D DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

8% 13%

32% 21%

26%

 E1 - out of 29 employees, 27% of the employees agree that the HR dept at NTPC is able
to effectively answer system related queries put forward by them. 49% disagree to the
fact. The rest 24% feel neither way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees, 39% of the employees agree that the HR dept. answers their
queries. Whereas, 33% disagree. The rest 28% don’t feel either way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 48% of the employees agree that the HR dept. answers their
queries whenever they have any, whereas, 28% disagree to the fact. The rest 24% of the
employees don’t feel either way.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 33% of the employees agree to the point, whereas, 36% of
them feel just the opposite. The rest of 31% of the employees feel neither way.
 E5 – out of 39 employees, 33% of the employees agree to the point, whereas, 36% of
them feel just the opposite. The rest of 31% of the employees feel neither way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees, 28% of the employees agree to the fact that the HR dept
answers to their queries effectively, whereas, 31% of the employees feel just the
opposite. The rest of the employees, i.e., 41% of them don’t feel either way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees, 34% of the employees say that the HR dept. does help them
out with their system related queries, whereas, 40% of the employees disagree the point.
The rest 26% feel neither way.

Q.5 there is regular documentation of individual’s work which can be easily be

referred to during annual performance appraisal.

E1 - Q5 E2 - Q5
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
11% 9%
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
17% 14%
DISAGREE
23% AGREE
AGREE 30%
21%

DISAGREE
28%
NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
21% 28%

E4 - Q5
E3 - Q5
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 13% 10%
11% 13%
AGREE
DISAGREE 23%
DISAGREE
22% 20%

AGREE
28%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

27% 35%
 E6 - Q5
E5 - Q5
DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
25% 6%
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 8%
18% AGREE AGREE
21% 31%

NEITHER A/D
DISAGREE NEITHER A/D 38%
33% 21%

E7 - Q5

DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

18% 5% STRONGLY AGREE
13%

AGREE
32%

NEITHER A/D
32%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 35% of the employees agree that regular documentation of

their work is done so that it can been used later for performance appraisal purposes,
whereas, 44% of the employees disagree to this point. The rest 21% don’t feel either
way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees, 39% of the employees agree that regular documentation of

the individual’s work is done, whereas 33% of the E2 grade employees disagree with this
point. 28% of them feel neither way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 40% agree that the documentation of individual’s work is done
regularly, whereas, 33% of them feel just the opposite, 27% of them feel neither way.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 32% agree that the documentation of their work is done
regularly and is later referred for performance appraisal, whereas, 33% disagree. The
rest 35% of them fee neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees, only 28% feel that the documentation of their work is done
regularly for further reference, whereas, 51% disagree that it is so. The rest 21% don’t
feel either way.
 E6 – out of 32 employees, only 37% agree to the point, whereas, 25% disagree to the
fact. The rest 38% don’t feel either way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees, only 45% agree to the point, whereas, 23% disagree to the
fact. The rest 32% feel neither way.

Q.6 my manager explains me the reasons for change in marks, if any, after
normalization.

E1 - Q6 E2 - Q6
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEITHER A/D DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
28% 10%
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE NEITHER A/D DISAGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE
28%

14% 9%

21% 32%

17% 17% 25%

E3 - Q6 E4 - Q6
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 13%
18%

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

12% 12%
DISAGREE
13%
DISAGREE
22%
AGREE
29% AGREE
35%
NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
25% 23%

E5 - Q6 E6 - Q6
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE 3%
3% AGREE
AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 28%
13% DISAGREE 9%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 22%
26%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

33% 38%

DISAGREE
26%
 E7 - Q6

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

15% 18%

DISAGREE
26% AGREE
23%

NEITHER A/D
18%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 38% of the employees agree that their manager explains
them the reason for the change in the marks, after the normalization, whereas, 45% of
the employees say that their manager does not give any reasons to them,. The rest of
17% feel neither way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees, 41% of the employees agree that the manager gives them
the reasons for change in marks if any, whereas, 35% of them disagree. The rest 24%
feel neither way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 41% of the employees agree to the fact and 34% of them
disagree, and the rest 25% neither do they agree nor disagree.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 47% of the employees agree that the manager gives them
the reason for the change in marks, whereas, 31% feel just the opposite. The rest 22%
feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees, only 15% of the employees agree that their manager gives
them the reason for change in marks after normalization, whereas, 52% of the
employees disagree. The rest 33% feel neither way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees, 31% of the employees agree that their manager gives them
the proper feedback related to the change in marks if any and 31% of the employees
disagree on this point, the rest of the employees neither agree nor disagree.

 E7 – out of 39 employees, 41% of the employees agree to the point, and 41% of the
employees disagree. The rest of the employees feel neither way.

Q.7 I feel PMC marks are in line with my actual performance.

 E1 - Q7 E2 - Q7
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 3% STRONGLY DISAGREE 4%
14% 12% 25%
AGREE
31%

DISAGREE
21%
DISAGREE
26%

NEITHER A/D
31%
NEITHER A/D
33%

E3 - Q7
E4 - Q7
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 6% STRONGLY AGREE
16% 13%
AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE 23%
31%
13%
AGREE
23%

DISAGREE
18%
NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
34% 23%

E5 - Q7 E6 - Q7
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 5% 10%
18% AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
24% 19%

AGREE
32%

DISAGREE
23%

DISAGREE NEITHER A/D

NEITHER A/D 16%
34% 18%

E7 - Q7

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

13% 11%

DISAGREE AGREE
26% 32%

NEITHER A/D
18%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 34% of the employees feel that their PMC marks are in line
with their actual performance, whereas, 35% of the employees feel just the opposite.
Rest 31% feels neither way.
 E2 – out of 57 employees, 29% of the employees feel that their PMC marks are in line
with their actual performance, whereas, 38% of the employees disagree to the fact. The
rest of the employees feel neither way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 37% of the employees agree to the fact, whereas, 29%
disagree to the fact. The rest of 34% neither agree to the fact nor do they disagree.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 36% of them agree that their PMC marks are in line with their
actual performance, whereas, 41% of them disagree to the fact. The rest of the
employees 23%, feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees, 29% of them agree and 42% of them disagree, the rest 19%
of them feel neither way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees, 42% of the employees agree that their PMC marks are in line
with their actual performance, and 42% of the employees also disagree to this point.
The rest 16% feel neither way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees, 43% of the employees agree that their PMC marks are in line
with their actual performance, and 39% of them feel just the opposite, the rest of the
employees i.e., 18% of them feel neither way.

Q.8 my manger directly addresses issues of poor performance.

E1 - Q8 E2 - Q8
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
4% STRONGLY DISAGREE 9%
14%

STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE DISAGREE

25% 36% 14%
AGREE
30%

DISAGREE
18% NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
18% 33%
 E3 - Q8 E4 - Q8
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5% STRONGLY DISAGREE
14% 15% 13%
DISAGREE AGREE
11% 32%
AGREE
21%
DISAGREE
21%

NEITHER A/D
38% NEITHER A/D
31%

E5 - Q8 E6 - Q8
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
AGREE 9%
3% 21%
STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
23%
25% 16%

DISAGREE DISAGREE
18% 16% NEITHER A/D
34%
NEITHER A/D
36%

E7 - Q8

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY

5%
AGREE
11% AGREE
24%

DISAGREE
22%

NEITHER A/D
38%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 39% agree that their manager directly addresses issues of
poor performance with them, whereas, 43% of them disagree to the fact. 18% feel
neither way

 E2 – out of 57 employees, 39% agree and 28% disagree to the point that their
manager directly addresses issues of poor performance with them. The rest 33%
neither agree nor disagree.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 37% of the employees agree, whereas, 25% of them

disagree to the point that their manager directly addresses issues of performance.
The rest 38% of the employees feel neither way.
 E4 – out of 40 employees, 33% of the employees agree, whereas, 36% of them
disagree to the point that their manager directly addresses issues of performance.
The rest 31% of the employees don’t feel either way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees, only 23% agree and 41% disagree and the rest 36% feel
neither way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees, only 25% agree whereas 41% disagree to the point that
their manager directly addresses issues of the poor performance. The rest of 34% of
the employees feel neither way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees, 31% of the employees agree that their manager gives
them the feedback on their poor performance, whereas, 33% of them feel just the
opposite. The rest of the employees feel neither way.

Q.9 my performance has a significant impact on my rewards.

E1 - Q9 E2 - Q9
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 11%
17% 17% 14%

DISAGREE
DISAGREE 21%
17% AGREE
AGREE
21% 33%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

28% 21%

E4 - Q9
E3 - Q9
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE 10%
8% 14% 15%
DISAGREE
22%

DISAGREE AGREE
18% 28%

AGREE
34%
NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D 30%
22%
 E5 - Q9 E6 - Q9

STRONGLY DISAGREE
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
15% 8% 16% 13%

AGREE
28%

DISAGREE AGREE
19% 25%
DISAGREE
26%

NEITHER A/D
23% NEITHER A/D
28%

E7 - Q9

DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

13% 8%
STRONGLY AGREE
21%

NEITHER A/D AGREE

31%
28%

 E1 – out of the 29 employees who filled the questionnaire, 38% of them agree that their
performance has a significant impact on the rewards that they get, whereas, 34%
disagree to the point and rest of 28% of the employees feel neither way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees, 44% agree that their performance does have an impact on the
rewards that they get, whereas, 35% of them feel just the opposite. The rest 21% feel
neither way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 48% agree that their performance does have an impact on the
rewards that they get, whereas, 30% disagree. The rest 22% don’t feel either way.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 37% agree, whereas, 33% disagree that their performance
does have an impact on the rewards that they get. The rest 30% feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees, 36% agree, whereas, 41% disagree that the performance
does have an impact on the rewards that they get. The rest 23% feel neither way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees, 37% agree, whereas, 35% disagree that the performance
does have an impact on the rewards that they get. The rest 28% feel neither way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees, 48% agree, whereas, only 21% disagree that the performance
does have an impact on the rewards that they get. The rest 31% feel neither way.
Q.10 my manger is able to effectively explain my performance gaps to me.

E1 - Q10 E2 - Q10

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

10% STRONGLY DISAGREE
14% 16%
7%
AGREE AGREE
21% 28%

DISAGREE
19%
DISAGREE
28%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

28% 30%

E3 - Q10 E4 - Q10

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

9% 9% 15% 13%
DISAGREE
17%

AGREE
23%
DISAGREE
23%
AGREE
37%

NEITHER A/D
28%
NEITHER A/D
28%

E5 - Q10
E6 - Q10
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 5% AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
18% 26% 10% 13%
DISAGREE
19%
AGREE
19%

DISAGREE
28%
NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D 39%
23%

E7 - Q10
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
8% 8%
DISAGREE
23%

AGREE
44%

NEITHER A/D
18%
 E1 – out of 29 employees, 31% of them agree that their manager is effectively able
explain them the reason for gaps in their performance over a period of time, whereas,
42% disagree that their managers do so. The rest of 27% don’t feel either way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees, 35% of them agree that the managers help them in
understanding their performance gaps, and 35% of them also disagree that the
managers do so. The rest of 30% don’t feel either way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 46% of them agree, whereas, only 26% disagree that the
managers help them in understanding the performance gaps. The rest of 28% feel
neither way.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 34% of them agree, whereas, 38% disagree that the
managers help them in understanding their performance gaps. 28% of the employees
feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees, 31% of them agree, whereas, 46% disagree that the
managers help them in understanding their performance gaps. 23% don’t feel either way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees, 32% of them agree, whereas, 29% disagree that the
managers effectively explain them the performance gaps. 39% feel neither way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees, 51% of them agree, whereas, 31% disagree that the
managers effectively explain them the performance gaps. 18% feel neither way.
Q.11 HR helps me in understanding the PACE process

E1 - Q11 E2 - Q11

STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

14% STRONGLY DISAGREE 9%
19% AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE
28% 14% 23%

DISAGREE
25%
NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
DISAGREE 25%
21% 24%

E4 - Q11
E3 - Q11
STRONGLY DISAGREE
STRONGLY AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 15% 8%
8% 6%
14%
DISAGREE AGREE
28%
13%

AGREE
40%

NEITHER A/D
36%
NEITHER A/D
32%

E5 - Q11
E6 - Q11
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
15% DISAGREE 9% 6%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 13%
28%

AGREE AGREE
26% 41%
DISAGREE
5%
NEITHER A/D
26%
NEITHER A/D
31%

E7 - Q11
STRONGLY DISAGREE
11% STRONGLY AGREE
18%

DISAGREE
24%

AGREE
18%

NEITHER A/D
29%
 E1 – out of 29 employees, 28% agree, whereas, 48% disagree that the HR helps them in
understanding the PACE process. 24% feel neither way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees, 32% agree, whereas, 44% disagree that the HR helps them in
understanding the PACE process. 23% feel neither way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 46% agree, whereas, 22% disagree that the HR helps them in
understanding the PACE process in better way. 38% feel neither way.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 36% agree, whereas, 28% disagree that the HR helps them in
understanding the PACE process in better way. 36% feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees, 41% agree, whereas, 33% disagree that the HR helps them in
understanding the PACE process in better way. 26% feel neither way.

 E6 - out of 32 employees, 47% agree, whereas, 22% disagree that the HR helps them
in understanding the PACE process in better way. 31% feel neither way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 36% agree, whereas, 35% disagree that the HR helps them
in understanding the PACE process in better way. 29% feel neither way.

Q.12 my manger takes time to help each employee achieve their best.

E1 - Q12 E2 - Q12

STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

10% STRONGLY DISAGREE 5%
18%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
24% AGREE
24%
DISAGREE
14%

AGREE
49%
DISAGREE NEITHER A/D
21%
21% NEITHER A/D
14%

E3 - Q12 E4 - Q12

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE
12% 15% 15% 8%
DISAGREE
12%
DISAGREE AGREE
13% 28%

AGREE
NEITHER A/D 34% NEITHER A/D
36%
26%
 E5 - Q12 E6 - Q12
STRONGLY AGREE
5% STRONGLY AGREE
19%
AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 29%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
29% 25%

DISAGREE
13%
AGREE
NEITHER A/D 28%
DISAGREE 16%
NEITHER A/D
13% 24%

E7 - Q12

STRONGLY AGREE
13%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
21%

DISAGREE
10%

AGREE
33%

NEITHER A/D
23%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 34% agree, whereas, 45% disagree that their managers take
time to help them achieve their best. 21% of them feel neither way.

 E2 – out of 57 employees, 54% agree, whereas, 32% disagree that their managers take
time to help them achieve their best. 14% of them feel neither way.

 E3 – out of 65 employees, 50% agree, whereas, 24% disagree that their managers take
time to help them achieve their best. 26% of them feel neither way.

 E4 – out of 40 employees, 36% agree, whereas, 28% disagree that their managers take
time to help them achieve their best. 36% of them feel neither way.

 E5 – out of 39 employees, 34% agree, whereas, 42% disagree that their managers take
time to help them achieve their best. 24% of them feel neither way.

 E6 – out of 32 employees, 47% agree, whereas, 37% disagree that their managers take
time to help them achieve their best. 16% of them feel neither way.

 E7 – out of 39 employees, 46% agree, whereas, 31% disagree that their managers take
time to help them achieve their best. 23% of them feel neither way.
Q.13 I set my KPA’s at the beginning of performance cycle.

E1 - Q13 E2 - Q13

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

10% 10% 14% 18%

DISAGREE DISAGREE
24% 18%

AGREE
41%
NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
14% 12% AGREE
39%

E3 - Q13
E4 - Q13
STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE 5% STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE 8%
8% STRONGLY AGREE 15%
17% STRONGLY AGREE
23%

NEITHER A/D
21%

NEITHER A/D
26%
AGREE AGREE
49% 28%

E5 - Q13 E6 - Q13
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
11% 13% 13%
STRONGLY AGREE
19%
DISAGREE DISAGREE
24% 19%

AGREE
37%
NEITHER A/D
16% NEITHER A/D
16% AGREE
34%

E7 - Q13

STRONGLY DISAGREE
13% STRONGLY AGREE
DISAGREE 21%
13%

NEITHER A/D
5%

AGREE
49%
 E1 – out of 29 employees, 52% agree, whereas, 34% disagree that the employees set
their KPA’s at the beginning of the performance cycle. The rest 24% feel neither way.

 E2 - out of 57 employees, 56% agree, whereas, 32% disagree that the employees set
their KPA’s at the beginning of the performance cycle. The rest 12% feel neither way.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 66% agree, whereas, 13% disagree that the employees set
their KPA’s at the beginning of the performance cycle. The rest 23% feel neither way.

 E4 - out of 40 employees, 51% agree, whereas, 23% disagree that the employees set
their KPA’s at the beginning of the performance cycle. The rest 26% feel neither way.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 50% agree, whereas, 34% disagree that the employees set
their KPA’s at the beginning of the performance cycle. The rest 16% feel neither way.

 E6 - out of 32 employees, 53% agree, whereas, 31% disagree that the employees set
their KPA’s at the beginning of the performance cycle. The rest 16% feel neither way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 69% agree, whereas, 26% disagree that the employees set
their KPA’s at the beginning of the performance cycle. The rest 5% feel neither way.

Q.14 my manger helps me understand that how my work contributes to

organization’s goals.

E1 - Q14
E2 - Q14
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
17% 17% 14% 14%

DISAGREE
25%
DISAGREE AGREE
24% 28%
AGREE
28%
NEITHER A/D
19%

NEITHER A/D
14%

E3 - Q14 E4 - Q14
DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
11% 6% 8%
DISAGREE 10%
STRONGLY AGREE 15%
20%

AGREE
36%

NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D
32% 31%
AGREE
31%
 E5 - Q14 E6 - Q14
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
8% DISAGREE 9% 9%
AGREE
21% 16%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
23%

AGREE
34%

DISAGREE
23% NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
26% 31%

E7 - Q14
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
10% 13%
DISAGREE
15%

AGREE
38%
NEITHER A/D
23%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 45% agree, whereas, 41% disagree that their managers
help them in understanding how their work contributes to the organization goals. The
rest 14% feel neither way.

 E2 - out of 57 employees, 42% agree, whereas, 39% disagree that their managers
help them in understanding how their work contributes to the organization goals. The
rest 19% feel neither way.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 51% agree, whereas, 17% disagree that their managers
help them in understanding how their work contributes to the organization goals. The
rest 32% feel neither way.

 E4 - out of 40 employees, 44% agree, whereas, 25% disagree that their managers
help them in understanding how their work contributes to the organization goals. The
rest 31% feel neither way.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 28% agree, whereas, 46% disagree that their managers
help them in understanding how their work contributes to the organization goals. The
rest 26% feel neither way.
  E6 - out of 32 employees, 44% agree, whereas, 25% disagree that their managers
help them in understanding how their work contributes to the organization goals. The
rest 31% feel neither way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 52% agree, whereas, 25% disagree that their managers
help them in understanding how their work contributes to the organization goals. The rest
23% feel neither way.

Q.15 HR provides regular training and reading material to help employees

understand PMS better

E1 - Q15
E2 - Q15
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 7%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 21% 18%
21% AGREE
DISAGREE 28%
4%
DISAGREE
16%
AGREE
14%

NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D 32%
39%

E3 - Q15 E4 - Q15
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
DISAGREE 11% 11% 10% 8%
DISAGREE
12% 15%

AGREE
36%

AGREE
37%

NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D 31%
29%

E5 - Q15 E6 - Q15
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
10% 3%
8% AGREE AGREE
21% 29%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
23%

DISAGREE
29%

DISAGREE NEITHER A/D

23% NEITHER A/D 29%
26%
 E7 - Q15
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
DISAGREE
10% 13%
15%

AGREE
38%
NEITHER A/D
23%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 36% agree, whereas, 25% disagree that HR provides

regular training and reading material to help them understand PMS better.

 E2 - out of 57 employees, 35% agree, whereas, 33% disagree that HR provides

regular training and reading material to help them understand PMS better.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 48% agree, whereas, 23% disagree that HR provides

regular training and reading material to help them understand PMS better.

 E4 - out of 40 employees, 44% agree, whereas, 25% disagree that HR provides

regular training and reading material to help them understand PMS better.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 28% agree, whereas, 46% disagree that HR provides

regular training and reading material to help them understand PMS better.
 E6 - out of 32 employees, 32% agree, whereas, 39% disagree that HR provides
regular training and reading material to help them understand PMS better.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 52% agree, whereas, 25% disagree that HR provides

regular training and reading material to help them understand PMS better.

Q.16 My manager inspires me to higher levels of performance.

E2 - Q16
E1 - Q16
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE 9% 9%
14% 14% DISAGREE
19%

DISAGREE AGREE
25% 25%
AGREE
40%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

21%
23%
 E3 - Q16 E4 - Q16
DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
9% 6% STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
12% 15% 18%

DISAGREE
18% AGREE
15%

AGREE
34%
NEITHER A/D
33%
NEITHER A/D
38%

E5 - Q16
E6 - Q16
STRONGLY AGREE
10% STRONGLY DISAGREE
9% STRONGLY AGREE
16%
STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE
23% AGREE
23% 22%

AGREE
25%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

DISAGREE
15% 28%
28%

E7 - Q16
STRONGLY DISAGREE
DISAGREE 10% STRONGLY AGREE
13% 15%

NEITHER A/D
21%
AGREE
41%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 39% agree and 39% also disagree that their managers inspire
them to higher level of performance. The rest 22% feel neither way.

 E2 - out of 57 employees, 49% agree and 28% also disagree that their managers inspire
them to higher level of performance. The rest 23% feel neither way.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 46% agree and 15% also disagree that their managers inspire
them to higher level of performance. The rest 39% feel neither way.

 E4 - out of 40 employees, 34% agree and 33% also disagree that their managers inspire
them to higher level of performance. The rest 33% feel neither way.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 33% agree and 51% also disagree that their managers inspire
them to higher level of performance. The rest 16% feel neither way.
 E6 - out of 32 employees, 41% agree and 31% also disagree that their managers inspire
them to higher level of performance. The rest 28% feel neither way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 56% agree and 23% also disagree that their managers inspire
them to higher level of performance. The rest 21% feel neither way.

Q.17 PACE form has a simple and practical format.

E1 - Q17 E2 - Q17
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
14% 12%
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 21%
25%
DISAGREE
16%

AGREE
30%

AGREE
18%
DISAGREE NEITHER A/D
18% NEITHER A/D 28%
18%

E3 - Q17 E4 -Q17
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
8% 8% STRONGLY DISAGREE 8%
DISAGREE 15%
20% AGREE
25%

DISAGREE
20%

AGREE
41%

NEITHER A/D
33%
NEITHER A/D
23%

E5 - Q17 E6 - Q17
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 10% 9%
15% 13%

DISAGREE AGREE
DISAGREE 28% 22%
18% AGREE
31%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

26% 28%

E7 - Q17
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
11% 11%

DISAGREE
24%

AGREE
32%

NEITHER A/D
24%
 E1 – out of 29 employees, 39% agree, whereas, 43% disagree that PACE form has a
simple and practical format. The rest 18% feel neither way.

 E2 - out of 57 employees, 42% agree, whereas, 30% disagree that PACE form has a
simple and practical format. The rest 28% feel neither way.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 49% agree, whereas, 28% disagree that PACE form has a
simple and practical format. The rest 23% feel neither way.

 E4 - out of 40 employees, 32% agree, whereas, 35% disagree that PACE form has a
simple and practical format. The rest 33% feel neither way.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 41% agree, whereas, 33% disagree that PACE form has a
simple and practical format. The rest 26% feel neither way.

 E6 - out of 32 employees, 35% agree, whereas, 37% disagree that PACE form has a
simple and practical format. The rest 28% feel neither way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 42% agree, whereas, 34% disagree that PACE form has a
simple and practical format. The rest 24% feel neither way.

Q.18 I am rewarded fairly for the contributions I make to the organization’s success.

E1 - Q18 E2 - Q18
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 14% STRONGLY DISAGREE 9%
21% 18%
AGREE
17% AGREE
28%

DISAGREE
18%

DISAGREE
24%
NEITHER A/D
24% NEITHER A/D
28%
 E3 - Q18 E4 - Q18
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
8% STRONGLY DISAGREE 10%
11% 15%

DISAGREE
19%

DISAGREE
AGREE 18% AGREE
34% 31%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

28% 26%

E5 - Q18 E6 - Q18
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE 9%
STRONGLY DISAGREE 8%
AGREE
18% STRONGLY DISAGREE 13%
19%

AGREE
31%

DISAGREE
26%
NEITHER A/D
18%
DISAGREE NEITHER A/D
31% 28%

E7 - Q18

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE

15% 15%

DISAGREE
15%

AGREE
NEITHER A/D 36%
18%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 31% agree, whereas, 45% disagree that they are rewarded
fairly for the contributions they make towards the organization’s success. The rest of
24% feel neither way.

 E2 - out of 57 employees, 37% agree, whereas, 35% disagree that they are rewarded
fairly for the contributions they make towards the organization’s success. The rest of
28% feel neither way.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 42% agree, whereas, 30% disagree that they are rewarded
fairly for the contributions they make towards the organization’s success. The rest of
28% feel neither way.
 E4 - out of 40 employees, 41% agree, whereas, 33% disagree that they are rewarded
fairly for the contributions they make towards the organization’s success. The rest of
26% feel neither way.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 39% agree, whereas, 43% disagree that they are rewarded
fairly for the contributions they make towards the organization’s success. The rest of
18% feel neither way.
 E6 - out of 32 employees, 22% agree, whereas, 50% disagree that they are rewarded
fairly for the contributions they make towards the organization’s success. The rest of
28% feel neither way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 56% agree, whereas, 30% disagree that they are rewarded
fairly for the contributions they make towards the organization’s success. The rest of
18% feel neither way.

Q.19 the performance assessment process helps me improve my performance.

E1 - Q19 E2 - Q19

STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 5%
10% 14% AGREE
17% AGREE
17% 27%

DISAGREE
17%
DISAGREE
29%

NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D 25%
38%

E3 - Q19 E4 - Q19
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
8% STRONGLY DISAGREE 10%
11% 15%
DISAGREE
17%

AGREE
DISAGREE 28%
20%

AGREE
41%

NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D 28%
23%
 E5 - Q19
E6 - Q19
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 8% STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
15% AGREE 16% 13%
23% AGREE
16%

DISAGREE
19%

DISAGREE
28%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

26% 38%

E7 - Q19
STRONGLY DISAGREE
STRONGLY AGREE
8%
13%
DISAGREE
23%

AGREE
21%

NEITHER A/D
36%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 28% of the employees agree, whereas, 34% of them disagree
that the performance assessment process at NTPC actually helps them in improving the
performance. The rest 38% don’t feel either way.

 E2 - out of 57employees, 32% of the employees agree, whereas, 43% of them disagree
that the performance assessment process at NTPC actually helps them in improving the
performance. The rest 25% don’t feel either way.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 49% of the employees agree, whereas, 28% of them disagree
that the performance assessment process at NTPC actually helps them in improving the
performance. The rest 23% don’t feel either way.

 E4 - out of 40 employees, 37% of the employees agree, whereas, 35% of them disagree
that the performance assessment process at NTPC actually helps them in improving the
performance. The rest 28% don’t feel either way.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 31% of the employees agree, whereas, 43% of them disagree
that the performance assessment process at NTPC actually helps them in improving the
performance. The rest 26% don’t feel either way.
 E6 - out of 32 employees, 28% of the employees agree, whereas, 35% of them disagree
that the performance assessment process at NTPC actually helps them in improving the
performance. The rest 37% don’t feel either way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 33% of the employees agree, whereas, 31% of them disagree
that the performance assessment process at NTPC actually helps them in improving the
performance. The rest 36% don’t feel either way.

Q.20 managers jointly set goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of
targets.

E1 - Q20 E2 - Q20

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

14% 11% 14% STRONGLY AGREE
16%
AGREE
18%
DISAGREE
16%

DISAGREE
29%

NEITHER A/D AGREE

NEITHER A/D 36%
29% 18%

E3 - Q20 E4 - Q20
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
9% 9% 10%
DISAGREE 13%
17%
AGREE
DISAGREE 18%
25%

AGREE
42%
NEITHER A/D
35%
NEITHER A/D
23%

E5 - Q20 E6 - Q20
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 10% 9%
15%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
22%
AGREE
26%

DISAGREE AGREE
9% 34%
DISAGREE
26%

NEITHER A/D
23% NEITHER A/D
25%
 E7 - Q20
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
13% 13%

DISAGREE
18%

AGREE
38%
NEITHER A/D
18%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 29% agree, whereas, 43% disagree that managers jointly set
goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of targets. The rest of 28% feel
neither way.

 E2 - out of 57 employees, 52% agree, whereas, 30% disagree that managers jointly set
goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of targets. The rest of 18% feel
neither way

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 51% agree, whereas, 26% disagree that managers jointly set
goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of targets. The rest of 23% feel
neither way

 E4 - out of 40 employees, 30% agree, whereas, 35% disagree that managers jointly set
goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of targets. The rest of 35% feel
neither way

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 36% agree, whereas, 41% disagree that managers jointly set
goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of targets. The rest of 23% feel
neither way

 E6 - out of 32 employees, 44% agree, whereas, 31% disagree that managers jointly set
goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of targets. The rest of 25% feel
neither way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 51% agree, whereas, 31% disagree that managers jointly set
goals with subordinates to ensure proper cascading of targets. The rest of 18% feel
neither way.

Q.21 Individual’s career goals, and not only organization’s goals, are taken into
account while setting KPA’s.
 E1 - Q21
E2 - Q21
STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 7% STRONGLY AGREE
14% AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 9%
24% 19%
AGREE
26%

DISAGREE
DISAGREE 14%
28%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

28% 32%

E3 - Q21 E4 - Q21
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 8% STRONGLY DISAGREE 10%
17% 18%
AGREE
23%
AGREE
33%

DISAGREE DISAGREE
21% 21%

NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D

21% 28%

E5- Q21
E6 - Q21
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE
5% 18%
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
13% 13%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
28%

AGREE
DISAGREE 23%
26%

NEITHER A/D
26%
NEITHER A/D
23%
DISAGREE
26%

E7 - Q21
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
13% 13%

AGREE
DISAGREE 23%
26%

NEITHER A/D
26%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 31% agree, whereas, 42% disagree that individual goals are
given equal importance just like organizational goals, while setting the KPA’s. The rest
27% feel neither way.
 E2 - out of 57 employees, 35% agree, whereas, 33% disagree that individual goals are
given equal importance just like organizational goals, while setting the KPA’s. The rest
32% feel neither way.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 41% agree, whereas, 38% disagree that individual goals are
given equal importance just like organizational goals, while setting the KPA’s. The rest
21% feel neither way.

 E4 - out of 40 employees, 33% agree, whereas, 39% disagree that individual goals are
given equal importance just like organizational goals, while setting the KPA’s. the rest
28% feel neither way.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 23% agree, whereas, 54% disagree that individual goals are
given equal importance just like organizational goals, while setting the KPA’s. the rest
23% feel neither way.

 E6 - out of 32 employees, 36% agree, whereas, 39% disagree that individual goals are
given equal importance just like organizational goals, while setting the KPA’s. the rest
25% feel neither way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 36% agree, whereas, 39% disagree that individual goals are
given equal importance just like organizational goals, while setting the KPA’s. the rest
25% feel neither way.

Q.22 the system of Appeals has helped in making PACE process more transparent.

E1 - Q22 E2 - Q22

STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE

STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 7%
14% 16%
21%
DISAGREE
11% AGREE
32%

AGREE
24%

DISAGREE
21%
NEITHER A/D NEITHER A/D
21% 35%
 E3 - Q22 E4 - Q22
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE
DISAGREE 9% STRONGLY AGREE
15% 13%
14% AGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE 13%
21%

DISAGREE
13%

AGREE
29%
NEITHER A/D
41%
NEITHER A/D
32%

E5 - Q22 E6 - Q22
STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY AGREE AGREE
5% AGREE 3% 22%
23%
STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
23% 31%

DISAGREE
DISAGREE 6% NEITHER A/D
NEITHER A/D 38%
26% 23%

E7 - Q22
STRONGLY AGREE
8%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
26% AGREE
26%

DISAGREE
13%
NEITHER A/D
28%

 E1 – out of 29 employees, 38% agree, whereas, 42% disagree that system of appeals
has helped in making the PACE process more transparent. The rest 20% don’t feel
either way.
 E2 - out of 57 employees, 39% agree, whereas, 26% disagree that system of appeals
has helped in making the PACE process more transparent. The rest 35% don’t feel
either way.

 E3 - out of 65 employees, 45% agree, whereas, 23% disagree that system of appeals
has helped in making the PACE process more transparent. The rest 32% don’t feel
either way
 E4 - out of 40 employees, 26% agree, whereas, 33% disagree that system of appeals
has helped in making the PACE process more transparent. The rest 41% don’t feel
either way.

 E5 - out of 39 employees, 28% agree, whereas, 49% disagree that system of appeals
has helped in making the PACE process more transparent. The rest 23% don’t feel
either way.

 E6 - out of 32 employees, 25% agree, whereas, 37% disagree that system of appeals
has helped in making the PACE process more transparent. The rest 38% don’t feel
either way.

 E7 - out of 39 employees, 33% agree, whereas, 39% disagree that system of appeals
has helped in making the PACE process more transparent. The rest 28% don’t feel
either way.
RESEARCH FINDINGS
After the study and analysis of PACE process at NTPC, the research findings on the Topic
are as follows:

1) Employee’s performance has a significant impact on his career advancements at NTPC.

The employees are rewarded fairly for the contributions they make to success of the
organization. But, some employees feel that career goals and performance gaps are not
considered while nominating them for the training programs. (refer question wise
analysis of : Q1,3,9,18,19)

2) Employee’s feel that individual goals are not given much importance as compared to
organizational goals while setting the KPA’s for the performance. (refer question wise
analysis of Q 21.)

3) Employees are not satisfied with the evaluation process in the PACE system. Many
employees have said that their PMC marks are not in line with their actual performance,
also they feel that regular documentation of the individual’s work, which can help the
appraiser in the appraisal of the performance of an individual. This again effects their
marks. (refer Q5, 7)

4) Manager’s at NTPC play a important role in the performance of their subordinates.

Employees agree that their superiors help them out in understanding the performance
 gaps, they inspire the employees to higher levels of performance etc. (refer : Q12, 14,
16)

5) Although most of the employees feel that the PACE form has a simple and a practical
format, some of them feel the HR doesn’t help them out with their queries related to the
system.

6) As it’s a public sector there is no much scope for offering the employees with regular
promotions, there is no scope for improvement in this area as there are limited resources
available with the government and the company itself.

SUGGESTIONS
The performance appraisal system of NTPC is of good quality. With the introduction of new
system, the E - PMS system is refined further. On the basis of the analysis of responses and
findings I have reached to some conclusions. So taking them into consideration few steps
may be considered to strengthen the performance appraisal system.

 The system should be made more transparent. This can be achieved by creating
awareness among the employees regarding each and every aspect of the appraisal
process. They should be made aware about the standards and the criterions for
evaluation.

 The appraiser and appraisee should sit together and then the appraiser should rate the
appraisee for his performance and should state the reason for the same. This will
increase the level of transparency and the employee will feel satisfied as he will have
an opportunity to respond at that very moment itself.
 The general belief among employees is that the relations with the superior affect the
evaluation process. This is not good as this creates a sense of favoritism in the
organization. No doubt one should be in pleasing terms with the superior but that
should not affect the evaluation at all. For this the raters should always consider the
performance as the only measure for the evaluation.

 The raters should take note of the critical performance incidents of an individual so that
at the end of the year it should not be that only the recent performances are given
more weightage.

 Raters should consider the specific requirements of the people to do the job. They
should help them out by providing necessary skill set to do the job more efficiently.
They should set the goals as per the potential and caliber of the individual.

 Proper and timely guidance should be provided to the employees working over there
by the reporting officer so that there is no hassle in the work and there are no blunders
in the work carried out by the employees.

 360 appraisal technique can also be implemented.