7/23/2019 Performance management at vitality

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/performance-management-at-vitality 1/2

 

Group- 6

Renu Chowdary-1401073

Varun Gampa-1401051

Avinash Mekaa-14010!5

Adi"ya #o"yaa-140100$

%er&orman'e mana(emen" sys"em pre-$00)

Pro’s

• Pay policy is about the 75th percentile with regard to compensation peer

group. This produced actual compensation fgures that averaged 7-8%

higher than competition.

• eviews were done basing on employees !oining date which gave more

attention to manager as the reviews were distributed over the year rather

than doing it in one month "or everyone in an years

#ons

•

$ystem "ocussed on pay stability o" a at salary.• &o provision "or bonuses or alternative "orms o" compensation.

•  Tenure with company resulted in higher salary inevitably rather than the

per"ormance.

•  Top per"ormers are not rewarded which resulted in morale issues and

motivation as they "elt they were under appreciated.

• 'anagers never gave high ratings li(e ) and low ratings li(e * or + which

resulted in lot o" central tendency error.

•  There was no way to identi"y top ,bottom per"ormers and reward or put in

place measure to improve bottom per"ormers or phase out.

%er&orman'e mana(emen"s sys"em $00)

e believe that the new system is comparatively better than the old system due

to the "ollowing reasons

• denti"ying both top and bottom per"ormers helps company to retain

crucial talent as this industry demands better scientists and product

engineering team. The "ocus on them was missing in the old system.

• +mployees are rated relatively against each other rather than f/ed

appraisal in old system which resulted in no room "or improvement as they

were getting hi(es !ust because they stayed with company.

*ome improvemen"s "o "he new sys"em

7/23/2019 Performance management at vitality

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/performance-management-at-vitality 2/2

• ncreasing the manager accountability is very important. )s we see0 both

in new and old systems managers were very apprehensive to give too low

or high ratings which results in central tendency error and lower

motivation,morale o" employees. 1ence manager should be made cru/ o"

the system and at the same time employees should be given an

opportunity to approach higher level " he,she "eels they were under rated.

• )s 75% o" the employees lie in the achievers bandwidth who are !ust

meeting their targets it is very di2cult "or managers to suggest any

improvements though re3uired i" they are rated relatively. 1ence0

incorporating more bands li(e pre 46 would be a better idea.

• or giving a salary increase to a person in a team0 instead o" "orce ftting a

"ew top per"ormers and a "ew bottom per"ormers0 we can add a weightage

"or team’s per"ormance or business unit per"ormance in terms o" their

per"ormance benchmar(ed across with other 9’s and teams across the

company.

• ncluding a 'ar(et analysis component ,benchmar(ing di:erent teamsbasing on the demand "or role in the mar(et. This will give an increase in

hi(e even though some one is in ;ow achiever category in a specifc team

but in a high per"orming team.

• Paying high severance pac(age will at least help company in letting go

underper"ormers and help company to attract new talent.