Brief of each issue

1. Failure of new Annual Performance Appraisal Review process in Human Resource /

Organisational Development:

The greatest employee development occurs when managers continuously

coach and mentor their employees’, thereby creating additional employee

capabilities and competencies. This is an on-going communication process between

an employee and his or her immediate supervisor. For ultimate effectiveness, this

process involves establishing clear expectations and defining job responsibilities,

performance measures, and ways that the employee and supervisor will work

together and communicate to identify the underperformances and then finds means

and ways to improve upon and enhance the overall performance.

The key point in the whole process is “on-going” and prompt feedback for

timely corrective actions.” Effective performance management takes place

throughout the year unlike the annual. For this to be effective tool in employee

development, feedback must be immediate and continuous – not saved up all year

long and dumped on an employee at the end of year in annual review as is

happening in MTNL.

The best performance results are realized when a supervisor gives feedback

and helps an employee “course correct” while in the middle of solving a problem.

Timely feedback has long-lasting effects because the learning can be applied

immediately. Supervisors who take advantage of these small, “teachable moments”

will save supervisory time by preventing a problem from growing out of control and

will build the employee’s confidence.

Reviewing an employee’s performance only once a year as is being practised

in MTNL is grossly insufficient and devoid of the desired objective of augmenting

capabilities and to address the issue of underperformances in MTNL. A little can be

achieved from evaluating individuals’ performance in the present Annual

Performance Appraisal Reporting system existing in the MTNL.

The APAR system is one way only and has lots of element of personal bias. It

has inherent potential for de-motivating the employee far greater than any benefit

out of it. Every one of us must accept the truth that Performance Reports are written

for unrevealed factors and reasons which are not related to the performance criteria

being reported but done totally out of context. We have several examples of under

reporting for otherwise excellent performers for unscrupulous and ulterior reasons.

This is aiming axe on own feet. It is repeatedly heard that “it is who you know, not

what you know” that will determine your APAR grade. Such a culture works against

the philosophy of the Personal and Professional Development (P2D) and other

required Training and Developmental initiatives. It erodes the credibility of and

confidence in the performance appraisal system and makes it very difficult to

manage career expectations in the organization.

It is true that baring few exceptional cases, large number of the cases of

under reporting are found related not to the actual performance but for satisfying

the personal interest of the reporting & reviewing officer even at cost of scarifying

the interest of the company. That is why employees had not liked and in majority are

grossly dissatisfied with their performance ratings, which are often arbitrary; still

decisions related to their career progression and promotions are taken on this basis,

while it remaining unclear on what basis the decisions were made and what the

employees needed to do to improve. It creates hatred in the minds of high

performers towards the superiors and the company as well, resulting in lowering the

overall performance. On the other hand, it encourages the loyalty towards an

individual superior rather than towards the organisation, which is certainly

detrimental for the company.

For a successful Performance appraisal, there is need for employees to be

given continuous performance feedback in a constructive, coaching, mentoring

relationship. Here also the system creates a high percentage of problems by totally

ignoring the need to inform the employee how he or she is doing. This lack of

communication often leads to significant uncertainty, anxiety, and low productivity

among employees, and in many cases the loss of a loyal and productive employee.

To enhance our performance, we need to adopt a two way systematic Performance

Appraisal approach, where a collaborative approach and team sprit may develop and

overall performance of the company is enhanced.

The paradox is if you don’t deal openly with a performance issue, you really

deal with it all the time. There is not a single instance in the company, where

underperformances have been identified and any corrective action is taken to

address the same.

2. Unjust and uncalled for raising the benchmark for promotions of the executive : A

deep dent in MTNL’s Performance and Efficiency

MTNL management unilaterally and unjustly raised the benchmark grading

for promotion, totally detrimental to the executives and the company’s interests as

well. The Earlier benchmarks were decided with profound deliberations and in line

with Dot Rule and Absorption Conditions.

Despite our clear and outright opposition, MTNL management highhandedly

issued new stricter benchmark for promotions of the executives in isolation. We

have raised strong objections to this raising of benchmark and demanded their

review immediately for justice, fairness, industrial harmony and efficiency.

In spite of intended objectives of achieving higher efficiencies, this move is

doing the opposite. Several persons are denied upgradation on pretext of not rated

Very Good. Since our Annual Performance Appraisal Reporting (APAR) System itself

is inherently defective and counterproductive as discussed previously, we are losing

many man-hours of constructive productivity from these affected persons.

No one can imagine and appreciate that even a single below Very Good

rating that too not for performance but for extraneous reasons can be so incurable,

harmful, and detrimental by depriving one his legitimate right of upgradation for ten

precious years. The whole system is very rigid, inflexible and highly fixated. It doesn’t

have human perspective for any curative action.

If anyone already having continuously excellent APAR and for, whatever

reasons, he was not given very good for even a year or half or say even for a very

small period of 90 days only, he will be stripped off his all promotional avenues for

next five years with rider that during next 5 years if such things will happen again, all

his of his/her prestige in service and society will go astray. He will totally be an

irritated, displeased and disguised man. He will lose motivation completely and for

ever. Such aggrieved person is not expected to perform for the company any more.

He or she simply start subdued rather opposed working; attending duties for shake

of formalities only with all his capabilities and competencies died forever causing

severe and irreparable loss to the company.

See the other face of it; even having paid full salary to a person and denying

merely 3% increment in TBP that too after 5 years, all his efficiency dropped to

bottom down level forever. There are chances that person starts working

disadvantageous to the company and at least against the team spirit. This way

company’s full salary is wasted.

We have seen in reality that some superiors want their egos and self-esteem

satisfied by subordinates, irrespective of sincerity to work and to the company by

influencing rating in APAR. That way it is rapidly eroding employee’s faithfulness to

the company. Moreover appraisal reports are written after a long time gap, many a

times years after the reported period, when it has no relevance and memories of

actual period. It is written merely as a formality and does not fulfils intended

purposes. This way it is a waste of time and efforts. There are several questions in

the minds of executives, which raises doubts and have established insufficiency of

the system itself.

To operate the APAR Grading, even the most essential element i.e. the KPA’s

have not been formulated as yet. KA must be clearly identifiable and measurable. No

training activities have been undertaken to implement the new APAR. Neither any

feedback system has been put in place nor have any training and development

programme been devised or even proposed for improving the individual low

performers. No provision has been made in the policy that even after undergoing

successful performance enhancing training & development process, the

performance rating of an individual will be restored to higher level. It does not

answer as to how otherwise a continuously excellent or very good rated executive

suddenly becomes a low performer while working with a particular superior. Is

reporting officer’s failure is not responsible for the low performance of their

subordinates. Is there exists any accountability to how and when the superior has

been able to caution and motivate the lower performance of his subordinates while

delivering the service? What to do if a frequently under performer superior gives low

rating due to his own superiority or inferiority-complex and why no detailed reason

and suggestion for development are given for low rated performance.

In the name of representation against, instead of asking from the reported

executive for the lower rating given to him, why not the reporting office is also made

to explain his role and accountability in the underperformance and enumerate the

detailed reason for his remarks and rating. After all it is the question of someone’s

career and promotion. In our legal system, one can only be punished when proved

guilty beyond doubt and by all means deserve benefit of doubt. Is MTNL

Management is prepared to enumerate and debate any benefits derived out of this

policy so far? Whether after implementation of this policy any improvement in the

performance of the company has been visible. We have seen the opposite

everywhere.

The system is totally punitive, demoralising, depressing, oppressive and

certainly bound to lower the efficiency of the company. We openly condemn this

benchmark policy and principally linking it to promotions, which is

counterproductive and detrimental to both the executive and the company as well.

Can the present APAR & Bench Mark system provide ways and means to

bring any underperformer executive back to good performance & above benchmark?

No way? Company don’t have any mechanism to address or correct any of the

underperformance identified through APAR’s.

The main motive of APAR and bench mark must be to encourage individual

executive and enhance the company’s performance. Use of APAR & bench mark

should not be used as punitive and in negative terms. There should be various ways

to deal this situation of alleged underperformance viz.:

a) All below bench mark grading in APAR must accompany details of the timely

initiatives and corrective steps taken by the superiors to correct the

underperformance of that subordinate. This will go a long way in building an

atmosphere of trust, cooperative work environment and instil team spirit in the

company.

b) Company may send an executive rated below bench mark for devised training to

enable acquire identified weaknesses and needed skill. On successful completion

of that training, entry be made in APAR and the APAR should be considered

above bench mark.

c) If one or two APAR are below bench mark, then earlier APAR’s may be

considered for assessments for promotions. This way executive is prompted to

maintain a steady state of desired performance. And any bias element in

reporting of APAR while posting under a notorious superior will be taken care of.

It will ensure that Executive’s aligned to company’s interest as against

satisfaction of personal interest of his superior.

d) Alternatively, marks secured in last (5 Yrs) APAR’s may be summed up and

average score determined. To this few grace points may be allowed seeing the

past and present performance of the executive.

e) Records of all underperformers under any Executive should also be indicated in

APAR by him/her indicating remedial steps taken to turn around that

underperformer. The initiative taken or lack of initiative to check

underperformance shall be properly accounted in his APAR with suitable

weightage of marks.

3. Review of existing Executive Promotional Policy:

Any organization’s Promotion Policy is formulated to help both the organizational

manpower needs and fulfil individual career plans. For attracting competent persons

and retaining them in organization, it is essential that they be assured progressive

careers. Normally employees have aspiration to advance and grow in their

organization, and also a desire to achieve a sense of fulfilment. Unless these

aspirations and desires of employees are taken care of, the organization cannot be

taken to higher levels of efficiency and productivity. So it is essential that Promotion

Policy must focus on individual employee’s aspirations and continuous ascent on

career path. One way to achieve all this is by a well though-out system of career

planning, which helps the employees to plan their career in terms of their capacities

with in the context of organizational needs. It (career planning) must help devising

an organizational system of career movement and growth opportunities from the

point of entry of an individual in employment to the point of his retirement

The available employees even after redeployment and training are always

cheaper and reliable than the new recruitment. In-house training to the existing

employees to suit the new job requirement is always better and cheaper option.

Hence there must not be lateral recruitment in the executive cadre but for

exception. Moreover, lateral induction is also detrimental to the working

atmosphere and the moral of existing work force. It affects the career planning of

the existing employees and hence is always the major cause of frustrations and de-

motivation among the existing employees thereby lowering the efficiency and

competencies of the organization as a whole. There is dire need for review of

executive promotion policy and integration of all such policies into one

comprehensives policy for coherent and simple understanding.

4. Review of Executive Recruitment Rules:

RR’s are formulated to facilitate filling up of the various posts with suitable

qualification and expertise, whilst in MTNL, RR itself have become impediment to its

objectives. Large number of posts is therefore lying vacant for compliance of RR and

provision of different quotas in various streams. MTNL RR has miserably failed to

achieve intending objective resulting into administrative inefficiencies and operative

collapse all through the company. Here Executives in E5 and above are promoted at

the verge of retirement while throughout the period earlier; they remained in

Looking After, a mechanism highly unproductive and inefficient. It lowers the

confident and hinder professional working of the executives. This merely serves as a

formality rather than proper and efficient functionality. As a practice and provisions,

RR needs to be changed after every 5 years for changed circumstances, availability of

incumbent and for ensuring proper succession to higher posts. Now time has come

to change the RR for executives altogether and also separating the RR’s from the

Promotion Policy. All posts upto DGM are purely technical in nature, where we have

sufficiently large talent pool to man such posts, so we do not feel any need for lateral

induction upto DGM.

MTNL must immediately review RR for Executives in close consultation with

all stake holders including service associations for contemporary conditions,

availability of experienced executives and incompatibility and unsuitability of

outsider recruitment. Further any external recruitment in MT will be effective on STS

level only after one year of training and 3 years of service in E4 grade.

Pending review of RR’s and together with all probabilities, it is inevitable and

compulsion of MTNL to fill up all vacant posts in STS & DGM cadre by SCF by doing

away any specific requirement of quota’s for external recruitment. This is imperative

because all incumbents so promoted on regular basis will eventually be retired in

next 2-3 years itself leaving all posts again vacant for filling by whichever method.

There is no way except to go for it immediately. Sooner we do better it will for the

company.