Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
12. www. Performance-appraisal.com
13. http://appraisals,nakurihub.com
14. http://appraisals.nakurihub.com/modern-method.html
CHAPTER - 6
PROMOTION POLICY
In this chapter meaning and purpose promotion,
different bases for promotion and promotion policy have
been discussed. Number of promotions received by the
respondents; perceptions of the respondents on availability
of promotion opportunities in the company, bases for
promotion, satisfaction with existing promotion policy in
the company; clarity, transparency and fairness in the
company’s promotion policies have been analyzed on the
basis of educational qualification, gender and designation
of the respondents.
6.01 Meaning and Purpose
To cope with the changing situations an organization makes adjustments in the existing
workforce through promotion. Promotion is a change in status upward resulting from assignment
to a position assigned a higher salary grade. A promotion is the advancement of an employee’s
position in an organizational hierarchy.
According to Scott and Clothier “A promotion is the transfer of an employee to a job
which pays more money or one that carries some preferred status”.1
According to Pigors and Charles “ Promotion is advancement of an employee to a better job -
better in terms of greater responsibility, prestige or status, greater skill and especially increased rate of
pay or salary.”2
Thus Promotion is an upward reassignment of an individual in an organization’s
hierarchy, accompanied by increased responsibilities, status and with increased income. The
employee being promoted, the promotee’s duties and responsibilities usually become
qualitatively different from those of his earlier job.
Promotion is an employee's reward for good performance or positive appraisal. Before a
company promotes an employee to a particular position it ensures that the person is able to handle the
added responsibilities by screening the employee with interviews and tests and giving them training or
on-the-job experience. A promotion can involve advancement in terms of designation, salary and
benefits.
To fill the vacancies in an organization management choose promotion as it serves the following
purposes.
1. To utilize the employee skill, knowledge at the appropriate level in the organizational
hierarchy resulting in organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction.
2. To develop competitive spirit and inculcate the zeal in the employees to acquire the skill,
knowledge etc, required by higher level jobs.
3. To develop competent internal source of employees ready to take up jobs at higher levels in
the changing environment.
4. To promote employee self-development and make them await their turn of promotions. It
reduces labour turnover.
5. To promote a feeling of content with the existing conditions of the company and a sense of
belongingness.
6. To promote interest in training, development programmes and in team development areas.
7. To build loyalty and boost morale.
8. To reward committed and loyal employees. 3
6.02 Bases for Promotion
Organizations develop a policy depending on the basis on which promotions are to be made.
1. Merit: denotes an individual employee’s skill, knowledge, ability, efficiency and aptitude as
measured from educational, training and past employment record. It helps employees to
acquire new skill, knowledge. However, lack of reliability in determining merit criteria
objectively is the main obstacle to its becoming the sole basis for promotion.
2. Seniority: Seniority is based on the length of service of an employee in an organization.4 It is
relatively easy to measure the length of service and judge the seniority. It minimizes the
scope for grievances and conflicts regarding promotion. At the same time it results in
employee turnover and it kills the zeal and interest to develop among young people.
3. Seniority-cum-Merit: There is a need to strike a balance between merit and seniority. Hence
a combination of both seniority and merit can be considered the basis for promotion
satisfying the management for organizational effectiveness and employees and trade unions
for respecting the length of service.
6.03 Promotion Policy
Every organization need to specify clearly its promotion policy based on its corporate policy.
The policy should contain clear cut norms and criteria for promoting an employee. The policy should be
fair and impartial and should be applied uniformly to all employees without giving scope for nepotism,
favoritism etc.
Promotion systems necessitate a twofold balance between the choice of the individual most
suited to fulfill the job role and thus contribute effectively to the organization’s mission, and individual’s
aspirations for promotional opportunities, which need to be satisfied. Organizations have adopted a
variety of promotion policies depending upon their culture, size, and business.5
6.04 Promotions
In the company the performance of employees are given utmost importance as the promotions
of the employees are based on their performance. The company provides ample of opportunities to
have successful career in the company for its employees. Till E2 grade employee promotions are based
on their performance and experience. From grade E3 promotions are based on the employee
performance and requirements of the company.
6.05 Responses of the Respondents to the Statements on Promotion
With this background, to collect the opinions on various aspects of the promotion and its policy
prevailing in Subex Limited, twelve statements have been given in the questionnaire. Responses have
been structured on a five point scale. The responses of the respondents have been analyzed statement-
wise under three variables namely educational qualifications, gender and designation and presented in
the following tables.
Responses to some of the questions/statements have been structured on a five point scale and
weights have been assigned in the following manner.
Responses Weights
Fully Satisfied/ Strongly Agree 5
Satisfied/ Agree 4
Undecided 3
Dissatisfied/ Disagree 2
Highly dissatisfied/ Strongly Disagree 1
Weighted Average Score (WAS) Interpretation
1.00-1.99 Very Low
2.00-2.99 Low
3.00-3.99 High
4.00-5.00 Very High
Table: 6.01
Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Number of Promotions
Received in the Company
Variables No. of the Respondents
1 2 3 None Total
Edu
cati
on
B.E./ B.Tech. 62
(60.19)
2
(1.94)
8
(7.77)
31
(30.09)
103
(100)
M.C.A./M.Tech. 65
(56.52)
26
(22.61)
16
(13.91)
8
(6.96)
115
(100)
Gen
der
Male 71
(57.72)
20
(16.26)
15
(12.19)
17
(13.82)
123
(100)
Female 56
(58.95)
8
(8.42)
9
(9.47)
22
(23.16)
95
(100)
Des
ign
atio
n
Trainee/
Software Engineer
20
(48.78)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
21
(51.22)
41
(100)
System Analyst 107
(85.60)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
18
(14.40)
125
(100)
Project Leader/
Manager
3
(5.77)
25
(48.08)
24
(46.15)
0
(0.00)
52
(100)
Total 127
(58.26)
28
(12.84)
24
(11.01)
39
(17.89)
218
(100)
Source: Field Survey
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals.
The table 6.01 depicts the number of promotions received by different employees in the
company. As many as 58.26 per cent of the respondents have got one promotion, 12.84 per cent of the
respondents have got two promotions, 11.01 per cent of the respondents have got three promotions
and 17.89 per cent of the respondents have not got any promotion.
All the trainees have not got any promotion and all the software engineers have got one
promotion. About one-half of the system analysts have got no promotion and one-half (approximately)
have got one promotion. Majority of the project leaders/managers have got more than one promotion.
Generally project leaders/managers are experienced hence they have got more number of
promotions.
Table: 6.02
Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Question,
“Is There Ample Opportunity for Promotion in the Company?”
Variables No. of the Respondents
Yes No Uncertain Total
Edu
cati
on
B.E./ B.Tech. 96
(93.20)
6
(5.82)
1
(0.97)
103
(100)
M.C.A/M.Tech. 102
(88.70)
12
(10.43)
1
(0.87)
115
(100)
Gen
der
Male 111
(90.24)
10
(8.13)
2
(1.63)
123
(100)
Female 87
(91.58)
8
(8.42)
0
(0.00)
95
(100)
D
esig
nat
ion
Trainee/Software
Engineer
37
(90.24)
4
(9.76)
0
(0.00)
41
(100)
System Analyst 109
(87.20)
14
(11.20)
2
(1.60)
125
(100)
Project Leader/
Manager
52
(100)
0
(0.00)
0
(0.00)
52
(100)
Total 198
(90.82)
18
(8.26)
2
(0.92)
218
(100)
Source: Field Survey
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals.
Table 6.02 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the
responses to the question, “is there ample opportunity for promotion in the company?” The table shows
that a great majority of the respondents irrespective of education, gender and designation think that
there are many promotion opportunities in the organization. A few think otherwise. The number of the
respondents who are uncertain is still less.
Table: 6.03
Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement
that “In Your Opinion what should be the Basis for Promotion”
Variables
No. of the Respondents
Seniority Merit Seniority-cum-
Merit Total
Edu
cati
o
n B.E./ B.Tech.
46
(44.66)
9
(8.74)
48
(46.60)
103
(100)
M.C.A./M.Tech. 28
(24.35)
7
(0.09)
80
(69.57)
115
(100)
Gen
der
Male 41
(33.33)
16
(13.01)
66
(53.66)
123
(100)
Female 33
(34.74)
0
(0.00)
62
(65.26)
95
(100)
Des
ign
atio
n
Trainee/
Software Engineer
10
(24.39)
5
(12.20)
26
(63.41)
41
(100)
System Analyst 45
(36.00)
7
(5.60)
73
(58.40)
125
(100)
Project Leader/
Manager
19
(36.54)
4
(7.69)
29
(55.77)
52
(100)
Total 74
(33.94)
16
(7.34)
128
(58.71)
218
(100)
Source: Field Survey
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals.
Table 6.03 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the
responses to the statement that “in your opinion what should be the basis for promotion”.
More than 46 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents, more than 69 per cent of the
M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents, more than 53 per cent of the male respondents, more than 65
per cent of the female respondents, more than 63 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, more
than 58 per cent of the system analysts, more than 55 per cent of the project leaders/managers, and
more than 58 per cent of all the respondents are of the opinion that seniority-cum-merit should be the
basis for promotion. On an average about 34 per cent of the respondents think seniority should be the
basis for promotion. From this it can be concluded that a majority of the employees think that seniority-
cum-merit should be the basis for promotion.
Table: 6.04
Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of Opinions of the Respondents on
Existing Promotion Policy in the Company
Variables
No. of the Respondents
Highly
Satisfied Satisfied Undecided Dissatisfied
Highly
Dissatisfied Total
Edu
cati
on
B.E./ B.Tech.
8
(7.77)
[40]
---
43
(41.75)
[172]
---
32
(31.07)
[96]
---
20
(19.42)
[40]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
103
(100)
[348]
{3.38}
M.C.A/
M.Tech.
38
(33.04)
[190]
---
49
(42.61)
[196]
---
20
(17.39)
[60]
---
8
(6.96)
[16]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
115
(100)
[462]
{4.02}
Gen
der
Male
25
(20.32)
[125]
---
59
(47.97)
[236]
---
29
(23.58)
[87]
---
10
(8.13)
[20]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
123
(100)
[468]
{3.80}
Female
21
(22.10)
[105]
---
33
(34.74)
[132]
---
23
(24.21)
[69]
---
18
(18.95)
[36]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
95
(100)
[342]
{3.60}
D
esig
nat
ion
Trainee/
Software
Engineer
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
20
(48.78)
[80]
---
20
(48.78)
[60]
---
1
(2.44)
[2]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
41
(100)
[142]
{3.46}
System
Analyst
26
(20.80)
[130]
---
44
(35.20)
[176]
---
32
(25.60)
[96]
---
23
(18.40)
[46]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
125
(100)
[448]
{3.58}
Project
Leader/
Manager
20
(38.46)
[100]
---
28
(53.85)
[112]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
4
(7.69)
[8]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
52
(100)
[220]
{4.23}
Total
46
(21.10)
[230]
---
92
(42.20)
[368]
---
52
(23.85)
[156]
---
28
(12.84)
[56]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
218
(100)
[810]
{3.71}
Source: Field Survey
Note: 1. Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals.
2. Figures in the square brackets are weighted scores.
3. Figures in flower brackets are weighted average scores.
The table 6.04 shows an analysis of respondents’ “overall opinion on existing policy of
promotion”.
Approximately one-half of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and more than three-fourths
of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are either fully or simply satisfied with existing promotion
policy of the company, 31.07 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and 17.39 per cent of
the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are undecided, and 19.42 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech.
qualified respondents and 6.96 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are dissatisfied
with the existing promotion policy. Nobody is highly dissatisfied. Reasons are not known. Calculated
WAS of B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents is 3.38 thus indicating a high level of satisfaction, whereas
WAS of the responses of M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents is 4.02 thus indicating a very high level
of satisfaction with the existing promotion policy of the company.
More than 68 per cent of the male respondents and 56.84 per cent of the female respondents
are either fully or simply satisfied; 23.58 per cent of the male respondents and 24.21 per cent of the
female respondents are undecided; and 8.13 per cent of the male respondents and 18.95 per cent of the
female of respondents are dissatisfied. No one is highly dissatisfied. Calculated weighted average scores
of the responses of both male and female respondents indicate existence of a high level of satisfaction
over the existing promotion policy of the company.
Slightly less than 50 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 56 per cent of the system
analysts and more than 92 per cent of the project leaders/managers are satisfied with the existing
promotion policy; as many as 48.78 per cent of the trainees/software engineers and 25.60 per cent of
the system analysts are undecided; and a meager 2.44 per cent of the trainees/software engineers,
18.40 per cent of the system analysts and 7.69 per cent of the project leaders/managers are dissatisfied.
Nobody is highly dissatisfied. Calculated weighted average scores show that satisfaction level among the
trainees/software engineers and system analysts is ‘high’, whereas among the project leaders/managers
is ‘very high’.
On the whole 21.10 per cent of the respondents are highly satisfied, 42.20 per cent of the
respondents are satisfied, 23.85 per cent of the respondents are dissatisfied and nobody is highly
dissatisfied with the existing promotion policy in the company. Overall weighted average score of the
responses is 3.71 thus indicating a ‘high’ level of satisfaction with the existing promotion among the
respondents.
Table: 6.05
Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement
that “Company’s Promotion Policies are well defined and shared with all Employees”
Variables
No. of the Respondents
Completely
Agree Agree Undecided
Do Not
Agree
Not at all
Agree Total
Edu
cati
on
B.E./ B.Tech.
15
(14.56)
[75]
---
30
(29.13)
[120]
---
17
(16.50)
[51]
---
41
(39.80)
[82]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
103
(100)
[328]
{3.18}
M.C.A/
M.Tech.
44
(38.26)
[220]
---
36
(31.30)
[144]
---
14
(12.17)
[42]
---
21
(18.26)
[42]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
115
(100)
[448]
{3.90}
Gen
der
Male
30
(24.39)
[150]
---
42
(34.15)
[168]
---
14
(11.38)
[42]
---
37
(30.08)
[74]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
123
(100)
[434]
{3.53}
Female
29
(30.53)
[145]
---
24
(25.26)
[96]
---
17
(17.89)
[51]
---
25
(26.31)
[50]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
95
(100)
[342]
{3.60}
Des
ign
atio
n
Trainee/
Software
Engineer
3
(7.32)
[15]
---
17
(41.46)
[68]
---
14
(31.15)
[42]
---
7
(17.07)
[14]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
41
(100)
[139]
{3.39}
System
Analyst
39
(31.20)
[195]
---
21
(16.80)
[84]
---
14
(11.20)
[42]
---
51
(40.80)
[102]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
125
(100)
[71]
{3.55}
Project
Leader/
Manager
17
(32.69)
[85]
---
28
(53.85)
[112]
---
3
(5.77)
[9]
---
4
(7.69)
[8]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
52
(100)
[214]
{4.12}
Total
59
(27.06)
[295]
---
66
(30.27)
[264]
---
31
(14.22)
[93]
---
62
(28.44)
[124]
---
0
(0.00)
[0]
---
218
(100)
[776]
{3.56}
Source: Field Survey
Note: 1. Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals.
2. Figures in the square brackets are weighted scores.
3. Figures in flower brackets are weighted average scores.
Table 6.05 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the
responses to the statement that “company’s promotion policies are well defined and shared with all
employees.”
Approximately 44 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and 69.56 per cent of the
M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are either agree with the statement; 16.50 per cent of the B.E./
B.Tech. qualified respondents and 12.17 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are
undecided; and 39.80 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and 18.26 per cent of the
M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents donot agree with the statement. Calculated weighted average
scores of the responses of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents is 3.18 and that of the responses of
the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents is 3.90 thus indicating a high level of agreement with the
statement that the “company’s promotion policies are well defined and shared with all employees.”
More than 58 per cent of the male respondents and 55.79 per cent of the female respondents
do agree with this statement; 11.38 per cent of the male respondents and 17.89 per cent of the female
respondents are undecided; and as many as 30.08 per cent of the male respondents and 26.31 per cent
of the female of respondents are do not agree with the statement. Calculated weighted average scores
of the responses of both male and female respondents indicate a high level of agreement with the
statement.
Slightly less than 48 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 48 per cent of the system
analysts and more than 86 per cent of the project leaders/managers do agree with the statement; as
many as 31.15 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 11.20 per cent of the system analysts and
5.77 per cent of the project leaders/managers are undecided; and 17.07 per cent of the
trainees/software engineers, 40.80 per cent of the system analysts and 7.69 per cent of the project
leaders/managers do not agree with the statement. Calculated weighted average scores show that
agreement level among the trainees/software engineers and system analysts is ‘high’, whereas among
the project leaders/managers is ‘very high’.
On the whole 27.06 per cent of the respondents completely agree, 30.27 per cent of the
respondents simply agree, 14.22 per cent of the respondents are undecided, and 28.44 per cent of the
respondents do not agree with the statement. Overall weighted average score of the responses (3.56)
indicate a ‘high’ level of agreement with the statement that “company’s promotion policies are well
defined and shared with all employees.”
Table: 6.06
Educational Qualification-, Gender-, and Designation-Wise Analysis of the Responses to the Statement
that “Promotion Decisions are based on Suitability of the Employee rather than on Favoritism”
Variables No. of the Respondents
Yes No Uncertain Total
Edu
cati
on
B.E./ B.Tech. 74
(71.84)
26
(25.24)
3
(2.91)
103
(100)
M.C.A/ M.Tech. 95
(82.61)
19
(16.52)
1
(0.87)
115
(100)
Gen
der
Male 100
(81.30)
23
(18.69)
0
(0.00)
123
(100)
Female 69
(72.63)
22
(23.16)
4
(4.21)
95
(100)
D
esig
nat
ion
Trainee/
Software Engineer
25
(60.98)
12
(29.27)
4
(9.76)
41
(100)
System Analyst 100
(80.00)
25
(20.00)
0
(0.00)
125
(100)
Project Leader/
Manager
44
(84.62)
8
(15.38)
0
(0.00)
52
(100)
Total 169
(77.52)
45
(20.64)
4
(1.83)
218
(100)
Source: Field Survey
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentages on row totals.
Table 6.06 shows educational qualification-, gender-, and designation-wise analysis of the
responses to the statement that “promotion decisions are based on suitability of the employee rather
than on favoritism”
Education-wise analysis shows that 71.84 per cent of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and
82.61 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents agree with the statement. Nearly one-
fourth (25.24 per cent) of the B.E./ B.Tech. qualified respondents and 16.52 per cent of the
M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents disagree with the statement. Remaining 2.91 per cent of the B.E./
B.Tech. qualified and 0.87 per cent of the M.C.A./M.Tech. qualified respondents are not certain whether
they agree or not with the statement.
Gender-wise analysis shows that 81.30 per cent of the male respondents and 72.63 per cent of
the female respondents agree with the statement; 18.69 per cent of the male respondents and 23.16
per cent of the female respondents disagree with the statement; and only 4.21 per cent of the female
respondents are uncertain.
Designation-wise analysis shows that 60.98 per cent of the trainees/software engineers, 80.00
per cent of the system analysts and 84.62 per cent of the project leaders/managers agree with the
statement. Others do not agree with the statement that “promotion decisions are based on suitability of
the employee rather than on favoritism”.
On the whole 77.52 per cent of the respondents agree, 20.64 per cent of the respondents do
not agree and the remaining 1.83 per cent of the respondents stay neutral.
Conclusions:
A majority of the respondents irrespective of education, gender and designation think that:
there are many promotion opportunities in the organization. Generally project
leaders/managers are experienced hence they have got more number of promotions.
seniority-cum-merit should be the basis for promotion.
satisfied with the existing promotion policy in the company.
promotion policies are well defined and shared with all employees.
promotion decisions are based on suitability of the employee rather than on favoritism
References:
1. Mamoria, C.B. and Ganker, S.V., Human Resource Management, Himalaya Publishing House,
Delhi, 2008, p.150.
2. Subha Rao.P., Rao, V.S.P, Personnel/Human Resource Management, Konark Publishers, Pvt Ltd,
Delhi, 1997, p.315.
3. lbid p.316
4. Mirza S.Saiyadain, Human Resources Management, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company
Limited, New Delhi, 2003.
5. lbid p.313.
CHAPTER – 7
REWARD MANAGEMENT
In this chapter responses of the respondents on
various aspects of reward management, collected through the
questionnaire, have been analysed, using certain statistical
measures, to understand acceptability of the human resource
practices relating to reward management. It is assumed that
