After reading the case I have found that

Problems & Findings

 The evaluation system was subjective and ineffective at distinguishing between good
and low performers, and it was only tangentially tied to the incentive system.
 The performance characteristics were redundant and unimportant. They were not
specific or clear.
 Higher-ups don't know how to fill out the assessment form since few people can defend
their comments, and the problem is with the people who fill it out, who aren't fair or
adequately trained.
 There is a discrepancy between the numbers and the comments. Because the grades
awarded do not corroborate the statements made, the manager was unable to
substantiate his remarks on the assessment.
 Data on performance was only collected once a year, which was insufficient.
 There were no measurable goals against which personnel might be judged.
 There is no distinct evaluation of promoting talents, and the existing approach depicts
that past success is not a predictor of future advancement, and subjectivity is involved.
 Lack of advancement in one's profession. Instead of being linked to yearly performance
appraisals, the appraiser had the freedom to raise or promote personnel as he saw fit.
 There is no option to change the assessment to agree or disagree since if an employee
disagrees, it will result in a conflict. Managers were given a limited amount of time to
express their thoughts.
 Managers have no idea what is written in their assessment until the last day, when their
managers discuss it with them. There is a lack of formal feedback to employees
regarding their performance because the assessment is produced by the management,
delivered to the committee, and then signed by the employees. As a result, there was no
purpose in questioning staff at this time, as the management pointed out.
 There is no way of knowing how system increments are chosen.
 Employees' effort and hard work go unnoticed during appraisals.

Question 2

The main issue: Management in a bureaucratic manner

Because of the government's participation, the company is unconcerned with its employees'
appraisals and career advancement. Although appraisals are done annually, they do not assess
and record performance throughout the year, thus there is always the possibility of receiving an
incident-based grade at the time of appraisal.

As a result, in 2000, ARL management added objective measurements to the PMS. The
"management by objective" approach of the new system was its most notable aspect. In the
years that followed, ARL experienced a lot of great changes. Management began to
acknowledge and encourage employee performance and its importance in the company's
success. Employees were given training sessions to enhance awareness of the new PMS and to
explain its goal, as well as training to create yearly objectives. However, owing to changes in
PM, the company encountered various challenges, including the significance of performance in
reaching professional excellence, the expansion of work groups and training opportunities for
workers rather than IT and engineers, and substantial gaps in the assessment process.

Option to minimize the problem:

 To create assessments and analyze the outcomes, specialized managers are necessary.
The initial answer is to hire skilled management professionals with administrative, HRM,
policy, and corporate strategy-making skills. Before an employee or management can
rate appraise, they must first grasp what performance-based evaluations are and how to
prevent typical rater mistakes. They must attend specific training sessions and become
familiar with metrics.
 Appraisals should be done twice a year at the very least. Appraisals should be based on
overall performance rather than when they were given. They should be judged on their
six-month performance rather than their recent performance. Management should be
chosen based on a set of criteria.
 A promotion policy should be in place that is based on both performance and seniority.
The assessment form now includes a new section in which the supervisor, head of
department, and employee discuss the employee's growth plan.
 After we have chosen the teaching approaches and resources, describe the metrics or
standards that will be used to determine if guided education was successful.
 Assessors should be aware of how to apply measuring performance standards while
assessing discernment. The consistency with which the regulations are implemented is
crucial. Furthermore, rating agencies must be aware of common rater mistakes.
 Workers must clearly state what they require when obtaining documentation.
Employees with open channels of communication are more likely to make reasonable
assumptions and trust the structure and its providers.
Mr. Khattak must try to promote employee advancement and recognize that workers are
the backbone of any enterprise; they can make or ruin a company. Employee awards and
compensations should be tied to the new evaluation. Training for filling out the assessment
form should be offered to all connected personnel. The evaluations should not be
prejudiced, and the explanation for the ratings given to the workers should be stated.