thesis presentation
TRANSCRIPT
Performance Management Practices
in Project based Organizations
Zulfiqar Ahmad
THESIS REPORT
2007
2
Introduction
⢠Reason of selecting this topic
â Third Wave
â Growing Focus on HR value
â Gap
3
Objectives⢠To study the practiced performance management
system in project organizations⢠To find the strengths & weaknesses of the
practiced performance management systems. ⢠To carry out a comparative analysis of the
practiced performance management systems.⢠To study the gap between the current industryâs
practices and the theoretical constructs. ⢠To find important factors in performance appraisal
which affects the work performance⢠In light of the findings of the comparative analysis
further suggest a framework.
4
Scope of study
Performance Management in Project based organizations
Management systems and processes to plan, monitor, measure & improve the performance of an employee
one time temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service.
â˘Telecomâ˘ZTEâ˘Wateenâ˘Diallog
â˘Softwareâ˘LMKRâ˘Si3
â˘Ultimusâ˘Construction
â˘Emaarâ˘Al-Ghurairâ˘HRL
Findings
29
⢠Telecom⢠ZTE
â˘Softwareâ˘Construction
Findings
ZTE Pakistan
⢠China based Telecom Company ⢠Leading provider of telecommunications
equipment and network solutions ⢠Partnerships with PTCL and Ufone telecom⢠Vision & Mission
â âŚEmployee's career development and their benefits are highly concerned and guaranteed to be growing along with the company's development at the same pace
32
Performance Management at ZTE
⢠Online Appraisal Form ⢠Objective of Appraisal:
⢠To ensure a formal review program⢠To evaluate work performance ⢠To promote communication
⢠Frequency: â Monthly appraisal â Quarterly formal review meeting
⢠Relative Grading Systemâ Department average/ section average * original
score⢠Telecom
⢠ZTEâ˘Softwareâ˘Construction
Findings
33
Appraisal Process
⢠Telecom⢠ZTE
â˘Softwareâ˘Construction
Findings
34
Performance Appraisalâs Rating Appraisal category
Definition of category % of total # of employees rated in this category
S Indicates Exceptional Performance that consistently exceeds requirements of the position.
20%
A Indicates performance that consistently meets the requirements of the position. This evaluation will normally be used to describe performance of high quality that meets & occasionally exceeds the existing standards of the profession
30%
B Indicate performance which is average, meeting expectations but need improvements
35%
C Indicates Performance that requires improvement (i.e. meets requirements without initiative or advancement)
10%
C2 Performance to be improved (Hardly meets requirements).
5 %⢠Telecom⢠ZTE
â˘Softwareâ˘Construction
Findings
35
Appraisal Form
⢠Telecom⢠ZTE
â˘Softwareâ˘Construction
Findings
38
Performance Management at Wateen
⢠Objectiveâ Setting work standards.â Assessing the employeeâs actual performance.â Providing feed back to the employees
⢠Role of HR in Performance Management â Advise managers on performance appraisal system.â Preparation of Forms.
⢠Types of Performance Appraisal â Annual performance Appraisal.â Performance appraisal for promotions.â End probation period.
⢠Frequency: Annual⢠Telecom⢠Wateen
â˘Softwareâ˘Construction
Findings
46
Performance Management at LMKR
⢠Two stage process ⢠Distributed: 10 days prior to appraisal date⢠Performance Appraisal Forms
â Three sections⢠A: Objectives and results weighted 65%⢠B: Key behaviors/ performance Weighted 20%⢠C: Value addition Weighted 15%
⢠Ratings of Performance Appraisalsâ 4 = greatly exceeds normal requirementsâ 3 = exceeds normal requirementsâ 2 = meets normal requirement â 1 = fails to meet normal requirement
⢠Linkage with increments, training and promotions â Salary Planning Review meetingsâ Company-training plan based on supervisors
recommendations
â˘Telecom â˘Software
â˘LMKRâ˘Construction
Findings
52
Performance Management at Ultimus
⢠Appraisal Forms (annex-8)â Part I â Critical Performance Elementsâ Part II â Progress Reviewâ Part III â Annual Summary Ratingâ Part IV âOverall Summary Rating
Summary Rating Total Score
Significantly Exceeds Expectation 95-100
Significantly Exceeds Expectation 80-94
Meets Expectation 50-79
Needs Improvement49 or below; no element rated
FME
Fails to Meet Expectation 1 or more elements rated FME
â˘Telecom â˘Software
â˘Ultimusâ˘Construction
Findings
55
Performance Appraisal Form of Emaar
⢠Frequency: â Monthly review (MUSHAFA) â Formal annual evaluation
⢠Appraisal is simple and has 3 parts(annex-9)â Assessment Areas for Field Staff â Competence Assessmentâ Overall Summary
RATING DESCRIPTION
1 SuperiorPerformance consistently exceeds a majority of position
requirements and is consistently ahead of peer group
2 Fully Meets ExpectationsPerformance fully meets position requirements and
matches peer group
3 Needs ImprovementPerformance fails to meet most position requirements
and is below peer group
â˘Telecom â˘Softwareâ˘Construction
â˘Emaar
Findings
61
Performance Appraisal @ Ghurair Giga
⢠Two forms for measuring performance (annex -11)
â Form-A: Employee Performance Evaluation⢠Consist of four parts, goals/objectives/tasks, other
accomplishment, employee comments and career matching
â Form-B: Construction Manager Appraisal Form⢠In this five behaviors are spelled out
⢠Six Scale rating system used on the continuum of Unsatisfactory to Outstandingâ˘Telecom
â˘Softwareâ˘Construction
â˘Ghurair Giga
Findings
Methodology
63
Research DesignResearcher interference Minimal
Type of Investigation Comparative & Co-relational
Study Setting Field Study
Unit of analysis OrganizationalIndividual
Time Horizon Cross-sectional
Constraints ReluctanceGeographical limitation
64
Data collection Methods⢠Primary Sources
â Survey Questionnairesâ Interviews â Observations
⢠Secondary Sourcesâ Journals
⢠International Journal of Project Management⢠Journal of Management Studies⢠Human Resource Management Journal⢠International Journal of Human Resource Management
and Personnel Review⢠Journal of Applied Psychology
â Books & Internet
65
Theoretical Framework
66
Hypothesis⢠Hypothesis 1
â H10 There is a relationship between the clear expectation in performance appraisal and job performance
â H1A There is no relationship between the clear expectation in performance appraisal and job performance
⢠Hypothesis 2â H20 There is a relationship between the developmental focus of
performance appraisal and job performanceâ H2A There is no relationship between the developmental focus of
performance appraisal and job performance⢠Hypothesis 3
â H30 There is a relationship between the strong linkage of performance appraisal with reward and job performance
â H3A There is a no relationship between the strong linkage of performance appraisal with reward and job performance
⢠Hypothesis 4â H40 There is a relationship between the valid appraisal design and job
performanceâ H4A There is a no relationship between the valid appraisal design and
job performance
69
Analysis
70
Individual Level Analysis- ZTE
⢠ZTEâ Result based appraisal systemâ High strategic congruence: Monthly
Appraisals â Appraisal promotes self-interest not
teamworkâ High risk of supervisor manipulation
because of only top down appraisalâ Problem with relative gradingâ Online appraisal Missing human element
â˘Telecomâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
72
Individual Level Analysis-Diallog
⢠Diallog Telecomâ Attribute approach â No specificity
⢠No focus on developmental aspectâ Procedural unfairness & employeesâ fearâ No informal feedback system & surprisesâ Not proper JDs - leads to ambiguity about
expectations, unrealistic goalsâ Military culture and impact on appraisalâ Forms are generalized
⢠Problem with design and contentâ˘Telecomâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
73
Telecom Sector Analysis⢠Little Behavioral focus⢠No developmental Aspect⢠Appraisal as an event ⢠No informal Feedback⢠Tell-Sell kind of appraisal Interview⢠No performance related Record-keeping
which leads to rater errors⢠No Raterâs training
â Low Reliabilityâ Low Specificity
â˘Telecomâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
74
Individual Level Analysis-LMKR
⢠LMKRâ Result and attribute approach â Appraisal signed-off after discussionâ Regency error, halo, horn effectâ Low reliability
⢠Value addition section & Subjectivity
â Central tendency error â no one gets 4.â Rating scale is unbalanced
â˘Softwareâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
75
Individual Level Analysis-Si3
⢠Si3â MBO based performance appraisal â JDs are static and difficulty in pinning down
objectives â narrow job descriptions doesnât take into
account work interdependenceâ Penalize or endorse employees on their
numeric score â Low specificityâ˘Software
â˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
77
Software Sector Analysis⢠Competition not cooperation
â Myopic view of job ⢠Dangling Employees ⢠Stretched Targets ⢠No Consideration of Situation factor ⢠Lacking Transparency⢠Multi-role demand & appraisal challenges⢠Peer appraisal-paradox
â˘Softwareâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
78
Software Sector Analysis
⢠Generic Appraisal form
⢠Lack of top management support
⢠Multi-skill employees and appraisal-reward linkage challenges
⢠Web based Appraisal & employee dissatisfaction
â˘Softwareâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
79
Individual Level Analysis-Emaar
⢠Emaarâ Balances both result and behavioral
factors.â Diversified portfolio & Focus to resultsâ Generalized targets â Policy issue of Average rating - mediocre
workforceâ Inter-rater reliability is very low â Onsite â offsite gap
â˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
80
Individual Level Analysis-HRL
⢠HRLâ Only Result based appraisal â Low relaibility
⢠Objectives are not rated individually; rather a brief descriptive assessment against loose definitions of expected performance
â Culture of the company is highly bureaucraticâ Top management is considered to be non-
supportive â Fixed generalized KRAs.
â˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
82
Construction Sector Analysis
⢠Project-portfolio resource and role demands⢠behaviors ⢠Low reliability
â Evaluation is dependant on the supervisor
⢠General level of acceptability⢠Appraisal forms are not true representative
â Deficiency â PM form does not assess the job
⢠Lack of top management supportâ˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
83
Summarized Project Level
⢠ââManaging by projectsââ as the strategy and HRM alignment
⢠âTemporaryâ organizations and nedd of change in the human resource configuration
â˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
84
Summarized Project Level⢠Employee development is under-emphasized ⢠75% agreed that less focus on developmental aspect⢠Negative correlation,-.52, between the work
performance and focus on developmental
â˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
AgreeNeutralDisagree
Strongly Disagree
Focus on employee development
85
Summarized Project Level
⢠Clear expectations about job itself
â˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
Strongly Agree
AgreeNeutral
Clear Expectations
86
Summarized Project Level⢠0.6 between expectations & work performance ⢠Statistically proved by t-test, 1.98 against table (1.62,
df 117)⢠So accept null hypothesis (H1)
â˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
87
Summarized Project Level
⢠Objective appraisal form with strong validity (less contamination) of system
⢠Strong correlation (0.75) between the valid design with less subjectivity can increase work performance
⢠But in comparison with -tive correlation with developmental focus, system need some behavior focus â˘Construction
â˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
88
Summarized Project Level
â˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
89
Summarized Project Level
⢠Correlation of reward linkage with work performance is 0.23 which is not significant.
⢠F-test of overall model with value of 188 shows that results are significant. R = 0.66 and R2 = 0.430 shows the predictability of the results. â˘Construction
â˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
90
Co relational Matrix
Work
performanceValid Design Expectations Reward Linkage
Work performance1
Valid Design0.75 1
Clear Expectations0.58 0.55 1
Reward Linkage 0.23 0.25 0.16 1
Developmental focus-0.52 -0.40 -0.34 -0.02
â˘Constructionâ˘Individualâ˘Sectoral
â˘Collective
Analysis
Recommendations
Proposed PM model for project organizations
93
Proposed Appraisal Model
94
Proposed Appraisal Process
95
Features of proposed model⢠Continuous evaluation process⢠Based on latest international standards ⢠Links individual performance with the goals of the
departments and organization through the process of goal setting in the planning stage
⢠Provides opportunity of development and conflict resolution⢠Takes into account behavioral aspect of employeeâs
performance and measure against predefined competency dictionary
⢠Comprehensive measurement system in which numerical values are calculated and provide the overall rating against a rating scale.
⢠Future outlook ⢠Provides input to training and development ⢠Provide transparency and feedback
96
Joining the dots
97
Sam
ple
Appr
aisa
l for
m b
ased
on
mod
el10%
20%
98
Section II
99
Section II
100
Sam
ple
Appr
aisa
l for
m b
ased
on
mod
el
101
Net ScoringSa
mpl
e Ap
prai
sal f
orm
bas
ed
on m
odel
102
103
104
Appraisal Forms
Thank you
Q & A