Exploring the Dimensions of Performance Appraisal System in Private Ceramic Tiles Companies in India
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Appraisal of the employees is undoubtedly necessity at a continuing basis during the working life. It is very desirable, useful and constantly being done. The HR department is responsible for fixing the qualities and characteristics to be rated in determining appraisal of employees. It is to prescribe the appropriate procedure for performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is very important in planning for the employees' training and development and in assessing their relative strengths and weaknesses. It is the right tool to assess the employee which justifies the selection of a particular employee, training and promotion exercises. The career prospects of employees depend largely on their appraisals. In case of small scale enterprises employee's performance may be evaluated by the superiors or foremen. But in multinational companies, formal systems of performance appraisal are required for a rational judgment of employees' efficiency, performance and capacity. The issues like clarity of performance goals and standards, appropriate resources, guidance and support from management are central focus now. Broadly, performance appraisal is useful in human resource planning, recruitment and selection, training and development, career planning and development, compensation programs, internal employee relations and assessment of employee potential. An organization's long-term success in meeting its strategic objectives rests with its ability to manage employee performance and ensure that performance measures are consistent with the organization's needs.Review of literatureEdwards and Williams (1998) conducted research on 'Performance appraisal in academic libraries: minor changes or major renovation?' This article addresses the diversity existent in the performance appraisal process and the reasons for these differences. Performance appraisals generally occur to provide documentation for current and future personnel decisions such as promotions, salary increases, staff development, and disciplinary reasons. Lea Prevel Katsanis, and Pitta (1999) examined 'The performance appraisal process of pharmaceutical product managers in Canada: an empirical study.' Abstract examines the way in which the perfonnance of the pharmaceutical product manager is evaluated. Attempts to provide a picture of the principal functions on which the Canadian pharmaceutical product manager is evaluated, as well as of performance appraisal systems currently used in the pharmaceutical industry. Matthew and Kirk ( 1999) conducted a study on 'Teams and performance appraisal Using metrics to increase reliability and validity. ' Inter-rater agreement in a peer performance evaluation system was analyzed using a sample of 44 individuals who rated focal persons in seven teams. Objective information concerning individual perfonnance on multiple choice tests, as well as information gleaned from individual contributions to team testing and team graded exercises, resulted in high inter-rater reliabilities (assessed via ICCs) and strong criterion related validity for the performance evaluation instrument. Poon (2004) worked on 'Effects of performance appraisal politics on job satisfaction and turnover intention.' In this research the authors found the evidence that performance ratings are often manipulated for political purposes. It further examined the effects of employees' perceptions of political motives in performance appraisal on their job satisfaction and intention to quit using survey data from an occupationally heterogeneous sample of white-collar employees (N % 127) from various organizations. Soltani (2005) conducted research on 'Conflict between theory and practice: TQM and performance appraisal.' A remarkable amount of theory-based research is beginning to suggest that, even in organisations that pride themselves on having a quality orientation, the approach driving current policies and practices for human resource (HR) performance appraisal might be in fundamental conflict with essential requirements of total quality management (TQM). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».