Kalyani Electronics Corporation Ltd., recently diversified its activities and started producing computers. It

 

employed personnel at the lower level and middle level. It has received several applications for the post of

 

Commercial Manager-Computer Division. It could not decide upon the suitability of the candidates to the

 

position, but did find that Mr. Prakash is more qualified for the position than other candidates. The

 

Corporation has created a new post below the cadre of General Manager i.e. Joint General Manager and

 

asked Mr. Prakash to join the Corporation as Joint General Manager. Mr. Prakash agreed to it viewing that he

 

will be considered for General Manager's position based on his performance. Mr. Anand, the Deputy General

 

Manager of the Corporation and one of the candidates of General Manager's position was annoyed with the

 

management's practice. But, he wanted to show his performance record to the management at the next

 

appraisal meeting. The management of the Corporation asked Mr. Sastry, General Manager of Televisions

 

Division to be the General Manager in-charge of Computer Division for some time, until a new General

 

Manager is appointed. Mr. Sastry wanted to switch over to Computer Division in view of the prospects,

 

prestige and recognition of the position among the top management of the Corporation. He viewed this

 

assignment - As a chance to prove his performance.

 

The Corporation has the system of appraisal of the superior's performance by the subordinates. The

 

performance of the Deputy General Manager, Joint General Manager and General Manager has to be

 

appraised by the same group of the subordinates. Mr. Anand and Mr. Sastry know very well about the system

 

and its operation, whereas Mr. Prakash is a stranger to the system as well as its modus operandi. Mr. Sastry

 

and Mr. Anand were competing with each other in convincing their subordinates about their performance

 

and used all sorts of techniques for pleasing them like promising them a wage hike, transfers to the job of

 

their interest, promotion, etc. However, these two officers functioned in collaboration with a view to pull

 

down Mr. Prakash. They openly told their subordinates that a stranger should not occupy the 'chair'. They

 

created several groups among employees like pro-Anand's group, pro-Sastry group, Anti-Prakash and Sastry

 

group, Anti-Anand and Prakash group.

 

Mr. Prakash has been watching the proceedings calmly and keeping the top management in touch with all

 

these developments. However, Mr. Prakash has been quite work-conscious and top management found his

 

performance under such a political atmosphere to be satisfactory. Prakash's pleasing manners and way of

 

maintaining human relations with different levels of employees did, however, prevent the emergence of an

 

anti-Prakash wave in the company. But in view of the political atmosphere within the company, there is no

 

strong pro-Prakash's group either.

 

Management administered the performance appraisal technique and the subordinates appraised the

 

performance of all these managers. In the end, surprisingly, the workers assigned the following overall

 

scores. Prakash: 560 points; Sastry: 420 points; and Anand: 260 points.

QUESTIONS:

 

 

1. How do you evaluate the worker's appraisal in this case?

 

2. Do you suggest any techniques to avert politics creeping into the process of performance appraisal by

 

subordinates? Or do you suggest the measure of dispensing with such appraisal systems?