Transcript Organization Evaluation

Facilitator and Course Coordinator
Vinayshil Gautam PhD ,FRAS (London)
(Founder director IIM K; Leader consulting team IIM S)
A AI Sager Chair Professor and first head,
Management department, IITD
Chairman DKIF
1




Evaluation is part of the planning process
It is used to check if the plans are on
course
The assessment is in terms of shape,
direction and intensity
It is process of checking how far
predetermined objectives have been
achieved and it’s the comparison of
actually achieved outcome against the
desired targets.
2




Evaluation is measurement against
predetermined targets
It’s a check for Quality of results achieved
It’s the assessment of balanced use of
resources
It is an analysis of goal resource chain
3

Evaluation should be in the context of
common framework or reference of
people going to be evaluated and people
responsible for evaluating
4

Organizational evaluation "measures,
compares and analyses the coherence
between results and specific objectives and
between specific objectives and general
objectives of institutional projects, programmes
or plans" (Hernan, 1987).

It can be helpful in identifying:
 whether or not the objectives and goals
originally established are being achieved, as
well as their expected effects and impact; ·
5

whether the organization is adapting to
new environments, changing technology
and changes in other external variables so
as to efficiently utilize the available
resources;

areas which need to be improved,
modified or strengthened;

different modes to better fulfill the needs
of the clients of the institute.
6

In addition, organizational assessment:
 generates evaluation information, which then
becomes a valuable experience-based input
in future planning, establishing of priorities
and resource allocation;

furnishes financial data to justify the need for
additional resources;
7

helps keep the key activities on the right track
and offers information that allows the setting of
minimum standards to promote compliance
with the organizational research process
objectives
8
Source:www.paralegaladvice.org.za as on 13/11/2k5
9

Depending upon the objectives of the
evaluation exercise, assessment may
focus on one or several of the following
(Hernan, 1987):

Economic impact This includes
measurement of the effectiveness of
research results, using techniques such
as cost-benefit analysis.
10

Impact evaluation Impact is measured in
relation to long-term effects on variables which
were sought to be altered through the activities.
For example, in a research organization,
impact evaluation would measure effects of
research outputs on transfer of technology and
returns to the farmer.

Basic evaluation This covers the identifying
and analyzing of the socio-economic,
biological, physical, technical and institutional
aspects which can be improved by research
activities.
11

Analytical evaluation This involves socioeconomic analysis of adoption studies,
productivity analyses, risk assessment,
use of labour, marketing credit and prices
and their effects on technical alternatives.

Operative evaluation This measures
efficiency by comparative analysis
between materials and resources used,
activities carried out and the results
achieved.
12

Evaluation of results This includes quantitative
as well as qualitative analysis of research
results, retribution factors and probabilities of
adoption.

Traditional evaluation It involves use of reports,
technical meetings, committees, ad hoc
groups, courses and seminars.

Personnel this covers evaluation of the
performance of professional, administrative
and technical human resources in the
organization.
13

Elements of assessment
 There are typically three elements involved in
an assessment exercise (Lawler, Nadler and
Cammann, 1980):

The organization, which is the main unit of
the assessment exercise. Heads of
departments, scientists and administrative
staff of the research organizations are the
sources of information.
14

The assessment team, which needs to use
appropriate measurement tools to collect
data regarding the organization and its
activities.

The people, who use the assessment
results for making the organization more
effective by setting priorities, policies, plans
and research projects.
15





Objectives of the assessment exercise
Size and nature of the organization
Areas to be covered during the assessment
exercise
Potentials users of the assessment results and
recommendations
Organizational model on which the assessment
methodology is to be based
16





Framework for conducting the assessment
exercise
Evaluation of data
Methods of collecting data
Methodology for conducting the assessment
exercise
Results, analysis and recommendations
17
“ The human resource function is increasingly
important in shaping the new organization in
which the quality and commitment of people is
key to survival. Every aspect of human
resource management needs to be reassessed
but none is more pivotal or difficult than
performance appraisal.”
D.F. Twomey and R.F Twomey
Journal Of Managerial Psychology,(1992)
18
Can be defined as involving
 The systematic review of the performance of
staff, on a written basis , at regular time
intervals, and
 The holding of appraisal interviews at which
staff have the opportunity to discuss
performance issues on a one-to-one basis,
usually with their immediate manager
It supplements the informal, ongoing process of
evaluating staff with a systematic approach.
19





By providing feedback to employees on job
performance, creates a basis of improvement and
development, and thus identifies the training and
development needs of the employees.
To eliminate uneven standards that may vary from
manager to manager
Removes the temptation to judge employees by
their personalities
Motivates the employees with appraisals
Helps to create the most productive work force
possible
20

The first concern while designing an appraisal
system should be to set up a system that is as
fair as possible.

The criteria against which the employee is
judged should be clearly related to the
demands of the job .The OUTCOME should be
judged, Not the person.
21

Performance appraisal is centrally linked to the
motivation of employees, it provides some of
the essential components of effective
motivational strategies

feedback that permits an employee to learn
how well he is performing

Goal or objective setting that specifies what
the person should be doing
22

Team building that allows the employee
to participate with peers and their
managers in solving problems that
impede their productivity

And Monetary incentives that reward
good performance
23
Has close linkages with other HRM
functions , in particular
 Selection
 Motivation
 Succession Planning
 Training of employees
24
According to Cummings and Schwab(1973),
The objectives of performance appraisal
schemes can be categorized as either


Evaluative – based on history
Developmental – plans for the future.
Certain amount of overlap, as past performance
determines future course of action/targets.
25







The immediate manager
The manager’s manager
Self appraisal – not exclusive
Upward Appraisal
Peer Appraisal
Multi Appraisal
Appraisal by outsiders
26
27
Speaking lexically, resistance means a force that
retards, hinders, or opposes motion.
And ergo, when a person tries to evaluate another
person, he is trying to mobilize his opinion, beliefs,
and judgment against him. No wonder, he is met
with resistance.
No one likes to be judged.
“It is simple human nature to resist being
evaluated.”
28

But at the same time it should be noted that
some people do welcome the evaluation as
they think it helps them to understand where
they stand.

Recent research shows that 76 % of Global
2000 firms do not conduct benchmarking at
least once a year. Only 19 % do conduct it
annually, while just 14 % continuously refresh
their benchmarks.
29
The most common sources of resistance
seem to include:
"My job is creative" (and therefore can't
be evaluated)
"I don't make standard widgets" (so I
can't be evaluated)
30

"I'm a professional" (so I can't be
evaluated)

"I don't want to be evaluated" (because
if you could evaluate my performance
you'd realize I haven't been doing my job
very well lately, and I may have to
change, and I don't want to...)
31
Resistance may exist because of:
1. persons who feel overburdened already
2. skepticism about elected officials
3. fear that the data will be used to reduce budgets,
to eliminate staff, or in other negative ways
32
4. perceiving it as a sign no confidence in their
abilities
5. fear that it is the first step in an enforced
speedup of operations
6. simple fear that performance inefficiencies,
heretofore hidden, will now be revealed by
performance evaluation.
33
Another problem is that supervisors may resist
conducting an appraisal program. Supervisors
may argue that:
1. regular evaluations are useless
2. their people won't like it
3. it will damage their relationships
4. there is potential for disagreements.
5. they fear of being wrong.
Supervisors rightfully fear making wrong
judgments, being challenged about them, and
looking foolish if proved wrong.
34
Some of the measures to limit resistance
are:
1.) Involving operating personnel, and
clients, in the design of the performance
evaluation system. It’s a wonderful
concept called ”employee buy-in.”
35
2.) Establishing incentives to encourage
managers to use evaluation
information, such as providing greater
operational and budgetary flexibility in return
for accountability.
3.) Providing training to help managers and other
stakeholders understand the importance and
benefits of performance evaluation.
36
37



Individual Accountability
System should be such that MBO and
individual performance deployment go hand
in hand
Build on Strengths
Organisation should be equipped to deal with
onion effect
Managerial Support
Supportive managerial support should be given
priority over yearly evaluations.
38

Flexible Systems
System should support wide spectrum of skills,
abilities and potentials. Slavish adherence to
evaluation procedures place obstacles in
unleashing human talent

Quantitative Feedback
Helps to identify the performers and the nonperformers in an organisation objectively
39

Developed by Thompson and Dalton

Peer- Comparison rating was studied and
rejected and Objective focussed approach was
established

In this method the goals are established and
subsequently performance is contrasted
against them to judge the performance.
40
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Rating Scale System
Critical Incidents System
Management by Objectives program
Essay Appraisal
Behaviour Scale
Ranking System
41
42
GUIDELINES FOR CRITICAL INCIDENTS
ANALYSIS
Instructions: Appraise the employee on both daily job activities and
the handling of special projects and the non routine situations.
Date:__________
Incident:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Employee’s action:
_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
43
Expected performance:
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Supervisor’s appraisal:
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
44
Shift from conventional appraisals undertaken
typically by immediate managers towards the
concept of 360-degree appraisal.
The concept builds on multi-appraisal and
refers to a situation where appraisal data is
collected ‘all around’ an employee, from his
manager, subordinates, peers and customers,
internal and external (where appropriate).
45
The element which is attracting the most
attention is upward or reverse appraisal,
largely because of its impact on manager
staff relations and on organization culture
46
In upward appraisal managers and employee are
reversing their roles.

Traditionally the employee's role has been to
supply whatever it takes to meet the demands
of the manager, who was viewed as the
‘customer’.

Now manager is the supplier of directions,
resources and coaching advice to ‘internal
customer’-the employees
Nicholas(1992)
47





Personnel/Human Resource Management by David A
DeCenzo and Stephen P Robbins ,Prentice Hall India
3rd edition 2004.
Personnel Management Handbook by Alexander
Hamilton Institute,1998 First edition
http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/tbm_161/ep-pe1_e.asp as
on 13/11/2k5 at 11:00 AM
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_urbanpol
icy/documents/page/odpm_urbpol_608055.hcsp
13/11/2k5 at 11:00 AM
www.laetusinpraesens.org/musings/orgeval.php
13/11/2k5 at 13:00 PM
48







www.isical.ac.in/~ddroy/teach/od.ppt 13/11/2k5 at
13:00 pm
www.indiainfoline.com/bisc/mdihr05.html 13/11/2k5
at 11:00 AM
www.srtt.org/downloads/pravashenq2000-03.pdf
www.sristi.org/papers/new/Rediscovering%20thel%
20lost%20goals..doc
Organisationa Management By Prof. Vinayshil
Gautam.
Human Resource Management By Brian Towers
http://www.fao.org/docrep/W7510E/w7510e05.htm
13/11/2k5 at 11:00
49
THANK YOU
50