11 Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS
MACRO ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN TELECOM

INDUSTRY
4.1 PMS in Telecom Service Providing Companies in Vidarbha Region
The research survey was conducted for employees working in the following telecom service
providing companies operating in vidarbha region.
• Tata Teleservices Limited

• Vodafone Idea Limited
• Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited
• Bharti Airtel Limited
• Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Tata Teleservices Limited (TTSL) is an Indian broadband and telecommunications service

provider based in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. It is a subsidiary of the Tata Group, an Indian
conglomerate.
In Tata Teleservices Limited , The performance appraisal process is a yearly process wherein
the mid-term reviews are taken in every six months. The performance appraisal process starts
with the message from HR to all employees with the process details on the web portal. The
employee has to furnish the self-appraisal against the targets set for the year. The supervisor has
to put remarks against each target achievement claimed by the employee. This is followed by
one to one meeting with employee and supervisor to discuss and agree on the ratings. If there is
disagreement the case is escalated to HR . In normal course of agreement the supervisor
completes the rating which in turn is moderated by the reviewer. Bell curve method is followed
for rating the employees on a five point scale. The ratings are categorized as functional and
behavioral. A combination of rating call as GP rating is assigned to each employee. G rating
indicated goal achievement and P rating for performance on behavioral parameters.G1P1 is the
lowest and G6P6 being the highest performance rating. The employee with G1P1 rating is
terminated immediately after the appraisal process. The employee with G2P2 rating are given
PEP Performance enhancement plan .This PEP includes targets to be achieved in the succeeding
quarter .If the targets are achieved, the employee gets a default minimum increment on salary. In
case of failure the employee is terminated. Training needs are also identified during the appraisal
process and the training program based on the requirement is offered to employees.
Vodafone Idea Limited is India's largest telecom operator with its headquarter based in
Mumbai, Maharashtra. Vodafone Idea is a pan-India integrated GSM operator offering 2G, 3G
and 4G(LTE) mobile services under two brands named Vodafone and Idea. Vodafone Idea also
provides services including Mobile payments, IoT, enterprise offerings and entertainment,
accessible via both digital channels as well as on-ground touch points, centers across the country.
On 31 August 2018, Vodafone India merged with Idea Cellular, and was renamed as Vodafone
Idea Limited. However, the merged entity continues using both the Idea and Vodafone brand.
In Vodafone Idea Limited, The software portal called “Poornata” is used for performance
appraisal. The appraisal is done twice a year but the final rating are given at the year end . The
targets are set in the beginning of the year itself. Bell curve approach is followed in appraisal
process. There are two types of ratings viz functional and other based on company basic values
model. The ratings are on five point scale. 1 being lowest and 5 being highest. The five values of
the company are Integrity, Seamlessness, Speed, Passion, Ethics. The final ratings are
categorized as FEE- Far Exceeds Expectation, EE-Exceeds Expectation, ME-Meets
Expectation, BE-Below Expectations, FBE-Far below Expectations. The employee with far
below expectation is terminated immediately after the appraisal process. The employee with
below expectations rating is given a Performance Improvement plan (PIP) and need to deliver
the results in immediate next quarter, failing which the employee is terminated. The training
needs are also identified during the appraisal process and the training calendar based on this is
followed by HR team.
Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, is an Indian mobile network operator. Owned by Reliance
Industries and headquartered in Mumbai, Maharashtra, it operates a national network with
coverage across all 22 telecom circles. Jio does not offer 2G or 3G service, and instead uses
voice over LTE to provide voice service on its network.
In Reliance Jio Infocom Limited, the central HR team sends a software link to all employees
for performance appraisal process to start during the month of March every year. The software
portal has three different parts viz Self-appraisal, Supervisor comments and Reviewer
(moderator) comments. The final remarks are submitted to HR. The targets are decided in
discussion with functional heads. Likert scale is used to rate employee on five points as A* being
highest performance and B negative- being the lowest. The performance reviews are taken
quarterly. The quarterly reviews by supervisors are updated in system and no rating is given for
quarterly performance. The targets are reviewed every quarter. Performance linked incentives are
paid every quarter. The employee with A* rating are eligible for promotion based on
recommendations from the reviewer. The B negative rating employee is issued warning letter for
performance improvement. Three consecutive B negative rating will lead to termination of
employee. The functional heads share ratings and get feedback from employees. This is followed
by discussion with HR and then the ratings are finalized. 15% of the employees get highest
rating.
Bharti Airtel Limited also known as Airtel is an Indian global telecommunications services
company based in Delhi, India. It operates in 18 countries across South Asia and Africa, and also
in the Channel Islands. Airtel provides GSM,3G, 4G LTE, 4G+ mobile services, fixed line
broadband and voice services depending upon the country of operation. It is the third largest
mobile network operator in India.
In Bharti Airtel Limited, The performance appraisals are yearly wherein the mid-term reviews
are taken every quarter. The SMART criteria is followed while setting targets in the beginning of
the fiscal year for every employee. The total number of key result area cannot exceed 10
.Employees conduct self-appraisal and then review by supervisor. The financial increements are
discussed during the discussion of the performance appraisal for the year.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (abbreviated BSNL) is an Indian state-owned

telecommunications company headquartered in New Delhi. It is the largest provider of fixed
telephony and broadband services with more than 60% market share, and is the fourth largest
mobile telephony provider in India. BSNL is India's oldest communication service provider and
its history can be traced back to the British era.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited being the public sector undertaking follows a conventional
approach in appraisal. The paper pen method is followed with standard formats circulated to all
the employees who are mostly filled by the reporting managers’ .The reporting managers directly
send the performance report to the head office wherein the salary increments are processed
irrespective of the performance rating being given to the employee. There is no scale of
measurements as such the reviewer has to put remarks on the appraisal format. This is done as
per essay method.
4.2 Recent Trends in Performance Management System in Telecom Industry
All the private sector companies have annual performance management system. The
contemporary issues and trends in telecom industry PMS are as follows:
1. Employees expect the feedback mechanism to be more frequent.

2. The number of key result area is not fixed .Employees want the number of key
performance indicators to be fixed as per the designation levels.
3. Companies need to clearly communicate with employees about the performance
measurement criteria for all levels.
4. Though the quarterly or half yearly performance reviews are a part of performance
management system, these are not dealt with very seriously and there is no
documentation of the mid reviews as such. Companies will have to focus on
accountability of the mid reviews discussion.
5. The HR team is involved in annual performance appraisal only. Companies will have to
involve HR in the complete year process of mid-term reviews as well.
6. The action plan based on the mid-term reviews need to be documented and measured as
well.
7. Employees find it difficult to quantify all performances and hence need to understand the
qualitative and quantitative performances separately.
8. Employee well-being needs to be considered as a part of performance management
system.
9. The performance measurement has to take care of correlation of employee mental health
with respect to work stress aligned to productivity and performance excellence.
10. The feedback mechanism as a part of PMS should have ‘coaching’ as outcome for
employees
11. The companies will have to develop PMS to improve employee manager relationship
with reference to performance effectiveness.
12. The psychological aspects of day to day life performance challenges need to be part of
performance management system.
13. All employees look for PMS to be a real time feedback system that assists their personal
and professional growth.
Based on the interviews and the data collected with survey,416 valid responses were received
.The statistical analysis of the data was carried out to understand the role of PMS in
motivating the employees for performance excellence.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Table 1: Distribution of respondents according to level of responses for each question
Level of response
Neither
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Question Agree
Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
N0. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Q1 1 0.24 32 7.69 3 0.72 281 67.55 99 23.80
Q2 0 0.00 10 2.40 0 0.00 234 56.25 172 41.35

Q3 0 0.00 37 8.89 2 0.48 328 78.85 49 11.78
Q4 0 0.00 43 10.34 6 1.44 351 84.38 16 3.85
Q5 2 0.48 34 8.17 5 1.20 351 84.38 23 5.53
Q6 1 0.24 9 2.16 8 1.92 151 36.30 245 58.89
Q7 1 0.24 79 18.99 20 4.81 311 74.76 4 0.96
Q8 0 0.00 47 11.30 5 1.20 354 85.10 9 2.16
Q9 0 0.00 10 2.40 15 3.61 363 87.26 27 6.49
Q10 3 0.72 36 8.65 0 0.00 348 83.65 28 6.73
Q11 0 0.00 36 8.65 3 0.72 311 74.76 66 15.87
Q12 0 0.00 12 2.88 4 0.96 394 94.71 6 1.44
Q13 1 0.24 67 16.11 17 4.09 326 78.37 5 1.20
Q14 0 0.00 74 17.79 4 0.96 334 80.29 4 0.96
Q15 0 0.00 35 8.41 9 2.16 359 86.30 12 2.88
Q16 0 0.00 38 9.13 7 1.68 332 79.81 38 9.13
Q17 4 0.96 111 26.68 6 1.44 294 70.67 1 0.24
Q18 0 0.00 2 0.48 5 1.20 367 88.22 41 9.86
Q19 1 0.24 17 4.09 47 11.30 348 83.65 3 0.72
Q20 0 0.00 2 0.48 2 0.48 308 74.04 103 24.76
Q21 1 0.24 1 0.24 2 0.48 408 98.08 3 0.72
Q22 3 0.72 3 0.72 1 0.24 405 97.36 4 0.96
Q23 29 6.97 98 23.56 11 2.64 273 65.63 5 1.20
Q24 0 0.00 27 6.49 6 1.44 368 88.46 15 3.61
Q25 1 0.24 112 26.92 10 2.40 285 68.51 8 1.92
Q26 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.24 405 97.36 10 2.40
Q27 2 0.48 26 6.25 0 0.00 331 79.57 57 13.70
Q28 0 0.00 1 0.24 0 0.00 302 72.60 113 27.16
Q29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 178 42.79 237 56.97
Q30 0 0.00 1 0.24 5 1.20 402 96.63 7 1.68
Q31 1 0.24 87 20.91 4 0.96 259 62.26 65 15.63
Q32 0 0.00 34 8.17 4 0.96 370 88.94 8 1.92
Q33 0 0.00 6 1.44 9 2.16 387 93.03 13 3.13
Q34 0 0.00 3 0.72 0 0.00 98 23.56 315 75.72
Q35 0 0.00 35 8.41 1 0.24 172 41.35 208 50.00
Q36 0 0.00 5 1.20 1 0.24 335 80.53 75 18.03
Q37 34 8.17 179 43.03 16 3.85 170 40.87 17 4.09
Q38 0 0.00 5 1.20 1 0.24 186 44.71 224 53.85
Q39 0 0.00 5 1.20 30 7.21 321 77.16 60 14.42
Q40 12 2.88 70 16.83 8 1.92 123 29.57 203 48.80
Question1) Managers are held accountable for doing effective appraisals
Figure 1: Pie chart showing distribution of responses to question Q1
It is evident from the pie chart that out of the total 416 respondents :-
1) 24%(99) Employees Strongly Agree
2) 67%(281) Employees Agree
3) 1%(3) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree
4) 8%(32) Employees Disagree
5) 0% (1) Employee Strongly Disagree

Question2) I Know, how my performance impacts the organization
Figure 2: Pie chart showing distribution of Responses to question Q2

Question3) High levels of performance are recognized and rewarded

Question4) PMS system is designed for input from all levels in the organization

Question5)The system measures the overall performance correctly

Question6)The system measures the results against the expected results


Question7)The system measures both,the results and how they are achieved
Figure 7: Pie chart showing distribution of Responsesto question Q7

Question8) The PMS system is fair.

Question9)The system is legally defensible

Question10)The appraisal process is simple and quick to do.


Question11) Managers view the appraisal process as a valuable management tool


Question12)The system supports developmental opportunities

Question13) Ratings are accurate and reflect actual performance

Question14) Managers are timely in doing appraisals.

Question15) Performers who need improvement are given developmental opportunities

Question16) Performance problems are dealt with quickly and consistently

Question17) Managers treat the process as ongoing versus once a year

Question18) Employees know what is expected of them at all times

Question19) Managers are rated on how well they do appraisals.

Question20)Performance standards are consistent across the organization.

Question21) Training in conducting effective evaluations is provided to appraisers.

Question22 )Training in the performance appraisal process is provided to employees

Question23)Performance Appraisal meetings are meaningful and productive

Question24) There is an appeals process in place if the employee has disagreement
with the appraisal ratings.

Question25) Ratings are based on actual performance and not on personal feelings

Question26) The performance evaluation states what the employee “should be”
doing versus “not” doing.

Question27) My performance rating in previous year gives me high motivation to
perform this year also

Question28)The performance management system motivates me for better
performance and growth opportunities

Question29) I feel that my performance rating has direct impact on my present
performance level.

Question30) I am aware of the recent trends in performance management system in
telecom sector.

Question31) I feel that performance appraisal should be conducted more frequently.

Question32)The PMS implementation is aligned with the latest trends in Indian
Telecom Sector

Question33)The appraisal process helps me to identify the area of improvement.

Question34) My performance improvement is due to the technology upgradations in
telecommunication sector.

Question35)The promotion policy,salary rise and other financial benefits offered by
the company motivate me for performance improvement.

Question36) My performance has direct impact of performance management system
in the company


Question37) My performance is impacted by peer pressure

Question38) Non financial benefits such as rewards/awards/recgonition in the
company are motivating me for better performance.

Question39) I wish to exceed performance due to working conditions/environment
in the company

Question40) Good leadership in the company motivates me to improve my
performance.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for questions related to PMS design (n=416)
Questions – PMS Design Mean SD Median
3: High levels of performance are recognized and rewarded. 3.94 0.69 4.00
4: PMS system is designed for input from all levels in the organization 3.82 0.66 4.00
5: The system measures the overall performance correctly 3.87 0.65 4.00
6: The system measures the results against the expected results 4.52 0.67 5.00
8: The PMS system is fair 3.78 0.66 4.00
9: The system is legally defensible 3.98 0.44 4.00
10: The appraisal process is simple and quick to do 3.87 0.68 4.00
12: The system supports developmental opportunities 3.95 0.37 4.00
13: Ratings are accurate and reflect actual performance 3.64 0.77 4.00
15: Performers who need improvement are given developmental
3.84 0.60 4.00
opportunities
18: Employees know what is expected of them at all times 4.08 0.35 4.00
20: Performance Standards are consistent across the organization 4.23 0.47 4.00
24: There is an appeals process in place if the employee has
3.89 0.55 4.00
disagreement with the appraisal ratings
26: The performance Evaluation states what the employee “should be”
4.02 0.16 4.00
doing versus “not” doing
32: The PMS implementation is aligned with the latest trends in Indian
3.85 0.58 4.00
Telecom Sector
33: The appraisal process helps me to identify the area of improvement 3.98 0.33 4.00
Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics for questions related to PMS design. Maximum mean
response i.e. 4.52±0.67 with a median of 5 was observed for Q6 (System measures results
against the expected results). This was followed by the mean response i.e. 4.23±0.47 with a
median of 4 for Q20 (Performance standards are consistent across the organization). The mean
responses for Q18 (Employees know what is expected of them at all times) and Q26 (The
performance evaluation states what the employee “should be” doing versus “not” doing) were
almost the same. For the remaining questions, the mean responses ranged between 3.64 to 3.98,
indicating tendency towards agreement.
Figure 2: Column chart showing mean score for design related questions
Table 3: Comparison of responses to PMS design questions between two designations
Executive (n=381) Manager (n=35)

Questions - Design P-value*
Mean SD Median Mean SD Median
3: High levels of performance are
3.94 0.67 4.00 3.91 0.92 4.00 0.613 (NS)
recognized and rewarded.
4: PMS system is designed for
input from all levels in the 3.83 0.63 4.00 3.66 0.91 4.00 0.272 (NS)
organization
5: The system measures the
3.87 0.63 4.00 3.77 0.81 4.00 0.497 (NS)
overall performance correctly
6: The system measures the
results against the expected 4.55 0.63 5.00 4.26 0.98 5.00 0.175 (NS)
results
8: The PMS system is fair 3.80 0.64 4.00 3.60 0.88 4.00 0.102 (NS)
9: The system is legally
4.00 0.39 4.00 3.74 0.78 4.00 0.002 (S)
defensible
10: The appraisal process is
3.89 0.67 4.00 3.71 0.83 4.00 0.179 (NS)
simple and quick to do
12: The system supports
3.96 0.31 4.00 3.83 0.75 4.00 0.340 (NS)
developmental opportunities
13: Ratings are accurate and
3.66 0.74 4.00 3.40 1.01 4.00 0.112 (NS)
reflect actual performance
15: Performers who need
improvement are given 3.86 0.58 4.00 3.60 0.81 4.00 0.010 (S)
developmental opportunities
18: Employees know what is
4.06 0.30 4.00 4.29 0.67 4.00 < 0.0001 (S)
expected of them at all times
20: Performance Standards are
4.24 0.45 4.00 4.20 0.63 4.00 0.984 (NS)
consistent across the organization
24: There is an appeals process
in place if the employee has
3.92 0.48 4.00 3.54 0.98 4.00 0.003 (S)
disagreement with the appraisal
ratings
26: The performance Evaluation
states what the employee “should 4.02 0.14 4.00 4.03 0.30 4.00 0.773 (NS)
be” doing versus “not” doing
32: The PMS implementation is
aligned with the latest trends in 3.86 0.57 4.00 3.71 0.67 4.00 0.069 (NS)
Indian Telecom Sector
33: The appraisal process helps
me to identify the area of 3.98 0.30 4.00 4.00 0.60 4.00 0.147 (NS)
improvement
*Obtained using Mann-Whitney U-test; S: Significant; NS: Not Significant
Table 3 provides the comparison of responses to questions related to PMS design between two
employee levels. The question Q9 (The system is legally defensible) showed statistically
significant difference in the distribution of scores between executive and managerial level as
indicated by a p-value of 0.002. Further, question Q15 (The performers who need improvement
are given developmental opportunities) showed statistically significant difference of score
distribution between executive and managerial level with a p-value of 0.010. Also, responses to
question Q18 (The performance standards are consistent across the organization) differed
significantly between executive and managerial level with a p-value of < 0.0001. The responses
to question Q24 (There is an appeals process in place if the employee has disagreement with the
appraisal ratings between executive and managerial) showed statistically significant difference
between two employee levels with a p-value of 0.003.
Figure 3: Column chart showing mean score for design related questions according to
designation
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for questions related to PMS execution (n=416)
Questions - Execution Mean SD Median

1: Managers are held accountable for doing effective appraisals 4.07 0.76 4.00
2: I know ,how my performance impacts the organization 4.37 0.61 4.00
14: Managers are timely in doing appraisals. 3.64 0.78 4.00
16: Performance problems are dealt with quickly and consistently 3.89 0.68 4.00
21: Training in conducting effective evaluations is provided to
3.99 0.21 4.00
appraisers
22: Training in the performance appraisal process is provided to
3.97 0.32 4.00
employees.
23: Performance Appraisal meetings are meaningful and productive. 3.31 1.06 4.00
25: Ratings are based on actual performance and not on personal
3.45 0.92 4.00
feelings
Table 4 provides the descriptive statistics for questions related to PMS execution. The maximum
mean response i.e. 4.37±0.61 with a median of 4 was obtained for the question Q2 (I know, how
my performance impacts the organization). This was followed by the mean responses 4.07±0.76
with a median score of 4 for question Q1 (Managers are held accountable for doing effective
appraisals). For the remaining questions, the mean responses ranged between 3.45 to 3.99
indicating tendency towards agreement.
Figure 4: Column chart showing mean score for execution related questions
Table 5: Comparison of responses to questions related to PMS execution between two
designation levels
Questions – Execution P-value*
1: Managers are held accountable
4.07 0.73 4.00 4.11 1.02 4.00 0.149 (NS)
for doing effective appraisals
2: I know ,how my performance
4.34 0.61 4.00 4.60 0.65 5.00 0.004 (S)
impacts the organization
14: Managers are timely in doing
3.68 0.75 4.00 3.26 1.01 4.00 0.003 (S)
appraisals.
16: Performance problems are
3.91 0.66 4.00 3.69 0.87 4.00 0.086 (NS)
dealt with quickly and consistently
21: Training in conducting
effective evaluations is provided to 4.00 0.07 4.00 3.89 0.68 4.00 0.208 (NS)
appraisers
22: Training in the performance
appraisal process is provided to 3.97 0.33 4.00 4.03 0.30 4.00 0.172 (NS)
employees
23: Performance Appraisal
meetings are meaningful and 3.32 1.06 4.00 3.14 1.12 4.00 0.327 (NS)
productive.
25: Ratings are based on actual
performance and not on personal 3.42 0.92 4.00 3.77 0.77 4.00 0.022 (S)
feelings
Table 5 provides the comparison of responses to questions related to PMS execution between
two designation levels. The question Q2 (I know, how my performance impacts the organization)
showed statistically significant difference of distribution between executive and managerial level
as indicated by p-value of 0.004. Further, question Q3 (Managers are timely in doing appraisals)
showed statistically significant difference of score distribution between two levels with a p-value
of 0.003. The responses to question Q25 (Ratings are based on actual performance and not on
personal feelings) differed significantly between executive and managerial levels with a p-value
of 0.022.
Figure 5: Column chart showing mean score for execution related questions according to
designation
Table 6: Descriptive statistics for questions related to motivation due to PMS (n=416)
Questions – Motivation Mean SD Median

27: My Performance rating in previous year gives me
4.00 0.66 4.00
high motivation to perform this year also
35: The Promotion Policy ,Salary Rise and other
financial benefits offered by the company motivate 4.33 0.86 4.50
me for performance improvement
38: Non-financial benefits such as rewards/awards/
recognition in the company are motivating me for 4.51 0.57 5.00
better performance
39: I wish to exceed performance due to Working
4.05 0.51 4.00
Conditions/Environment in the company
40: Good leadership in the company motivates me
4.05 1.20 4.00
to improve my performance
Table 6 provides the descriptive statistics for questions related to motivation due to PMS. The
maximum mean response i.e. 4.51±0.57 with a median of 5 was obtained for the question Q38
(Non-financial benefits such as rewards/awards/recognition in the company are motivating me
for better performance). This was followed by the mean response to question Q35 (The
Promotion Policy, Salary Rise and other financial benefits of fered by the company
motivate me for performance improvement) i.e. 4.33±0.86 with a median of 4.50. The mean
scores for other responses were close to 4.0.
Figure 6: Column chart showing mean score for motivation related questions
Table 7: Comparison of responses to questions related to motivation between two designations
levels

Questions – Motivation P-value*
27: My Performance rating in
previous year gives me
3.96 0.66 4.00 4.37 0.49 4.00 < 0.0001 (S)
high motivation to perform this
year also
35: The Promotion Policy ,Salary
Rise and other
financial benefits offered by the
4.32 0.84 4.00 4.46 0.98 5.00 0.064 (NS)
company motivate
me for performance
improvement
38: Non-financial benefits such
as rewards/awards/
recognition in the company are 4.52 0.54 5.00 4.37 0.88 5.00 0.723 (NS)
motivating me for
better performance
39: I wish to exceed performance
due to Working
4.04 0.50 4.00 4.14 0.60 4.00 0.150 (NS)
Conditions/Environment in the
company
40: Good leadership in the
company motivates me 4.10 1.18 5.00 3.46 1.31 4.00 0.005 (S)
to improve my performance
Table 7 provides the comparison of responses to questions related to motivation between two
designation levels. The response to question Q27 (My performance rating in previous year gives
me high motivation to perform this year also) showed statistically significant difference of
distributions between executive and managerial level as indicated p-value of < 0.0001. Further,
question 40 (Good leadership in the company motivates me to improve my performance) also
showed statistically significant deference of scores between executive and managerial levels with
a p-value of 0.005. Other questions showed statistical ly insignificant differences.
Figure 7: Column chart showing mean score for motivation related questions according to
designation
Table 8: Latent Class Analysis for questions related to design of PMS
Log- Residual Likelihood-
Model BIC aBIC cAIC
likelihood DF ratio
Model - 7134.7982 6931.7097 7198.7982
1 352 3623.585656
1 3374.417181 19 29 19
Model - 6042.0603 5632.7101 6171.0603
2 287 2157.289512
2 2632.050992 82 45 82
Model - 5997.5788 5381.9668 6191.5788
3 222 1719.814234
3 2413.812944 29 44 29
Model - 6220.3738 5398.5001 6479.3738
4 157 1566.075744
4 2329.213185 51 18 51
Model - 6514.9926 5486.8571 6838.9926
5 92 1463.30843
5 2280.525306 36 55 36
Model - 6807.3238 5572.9266 7196.3238
6 27 1371.229835
6 2230.693666 98 69 98
Table 8 provides the latent class analysis for questions related to design of PMS. The Baysian
Information Content (BIC) criterion was referred for deciding the optimum number of clusters of
respondents. Table reveals that the minimum BIC obtained was corresponding to 3 clusters
(5997.58) suggesting that the respondents could be classified into three clusters. Accordingly, the
clusters were formed with their descriptive statistics shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Descriptive statistics for questions related to design of PMS according to three clusters
Rational design Somewhat rational Weak design
Questio (n=350) design(n=23) (n=43)
P-value*
ns Mea Media Mea Media
SD Mean SD Median SD
n n n n
0.3 0.8 < 0.0001
3 4.12 4.00 3.70 0.93 4.00 2.31 2.00
3 9 (S)
0.2 0.5 < 0.0001
4 4.01 4.00 3.52 0.95 4.00 2.14 2.00
8 9 (S)
0.3 1.0 < 0.0001
5 4.02 4.00 3.91 0.51 4.00 2.42 2.00
5 0 (S)
0.5 1.1 0.102
6 4.57 5.00 4.00 1.04 4.00 4.42 5.00
3 6 (NS)
0.3 0.9 < 0.0001
8 3.95 4.00 3.48 1.04 4.00 2.42 2.00
4 7 (S)
0.1 1.1 < 0.0001
9 3.99 4.00 3.43 0.73 4.00 4.33 5.00
4 7 (S)
0.2 0.7 < 0.0001
10 4.08 4.00 3.26 1.18 4.00 2.31 2.00
7 9 (S)
0.1 0.7
12 4.00 4.00 3.48 0.90 4.00 3.75 4.00 0.028 (S)
9 3
0.6 0.7 < 0.0001
13 3.80 4.00 3.48 0.85 4.00 2.22 2.00
0 6 (S)
0.2 0.2 < 0.0001
15 4.01 4.00 3.91 0.60 4.00 2.06 2.00
1 3 (S)
0.2 0.4 < 0.0001
18 4.05 4.00 4.65 0.71 5.00 3.94 4.00
7 1 (S)
0.4 0.3 < 0.0001
20 4.25 4.00 4.39 0.66 4.00 3.97 4.00
5 8 (S)
0.3 0.7 < 0.0001
24 4.01 4.00 2.57 0.95 2.00 3.69 4.00
2 1 (S)
0.0 0.0
26 4.01 4.00 4.26 0.54 4.00 4.00 4.00 0.032 (S)
8 0
0.1 0.7 < 0.0001
32 4.01 4.00 3.65 0.88 4.00 2.36 2.00
8 6 (S)
0.3 0.5 0.641
33 3.98 4.00 4.04 0.37 4.00 3.92 4.00
1 0 (NS)
*Obtained using Friedman ANOVA test; S: Significant; NS: Not Significant
Table 9 provides the comparison for questions related to design of PMS across three clusters. The
first cluster ‘Rational design’ had 350 respondents, while second cluster ‘Somewhat rational
design’ had 23 respondents and third cluster ‘Weak design’ had 43 respondents. The mean for
first cluster across different questions was 4.05 (SD: 0.16), while for second cluster was 3.73
(SD: 0.49) and for third cluster was 3.14 (SD: 0.91). The comparison of responses to each
question across three clusters was performed using Friedman ANOVA with the results shown in
Table 9. It shows that all the questions, except Q6 and Q33 had insignificantly different
responses across three clusters (p > 0.05), while the remaining questions showed significant
differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 8: Column chart showing mean scores for design related questions in three clusters
Table 10: Latent Class Analysis for questions related to execution of PMS
Model BIC aBIC cAIC
likelihood DF Ratio
Modell 4266.7048 4165.1606 4298.7048
1 -2036.86148 384 1277.686194
1 87 42 87
-
Modell 4005.6269 3799.3651 4070.6269
2 1806.81619 351 818.4896499
2 27 79 27
2
-
Modell 3966.4510 3655.4718 4064.4510
3 1687.72196 318 581.3381218
3 88 37 88
6
-
Modell 4037.4316 3621.7348 4168.4316
4 1623.70592 285 453.3814771
4 26 73 26
8
-
Modell 4188.5390 3668.1247 4352.5390
5 1599.75330 252 405.5104565
5 02 46 02
9
-
Modell 4345.2450 3720.1133 4542.2450
6 1578.60003 219 362.1717127
6 64 06 64
4
Table 10 provides the latent class analysis for question related to execution of PMS. Baysian
Information Content (BIC) criterion was referred, which indicated a minimum value of 3966.45
corresponding to model 3. Thus, the respondents were classified into three clusters.
Table 11: Descriptive statistics for questions related to execution of PMS according to clusters
Good execution Fair execution Poor execution
Executio (n=275) (n=102) (n=39)
P-value*
n Mea Media Mea Media
Mean SD Median SD SD
n n n n
0.5 0.8 < 0.0001
Q1 4.24 0.46 4.00 4.23 4.00 2.35 2.00
8 2 (S)
0.4 0.9 < 0.0001
Q2 4.39 0.49 4.00 4.63 5.00 3.46 4.00
9 0 (S)
1.0 0.7 < 0.0001
Q14 3.87 0.51 4.00 3.03 3.00 3.68 4.00
4 5 (S)
0.7 0.6 < 0.0001
Q16 4.04 0.20 4.00 4.09 4.00 2.22 2.00
2 3 (S)
0.1 0.4
Q21 3.99 0.15 4.00 4.03 4.00 3.92 4.00 0.047 (S)
7 9
0.9
Q22 4.00 0.06 4.00 4.04 0.2 4.00 3.59 4.00 0.003 (S)
6
0.6 1.1 < 0.0001
Q23 3.90 0.48 4.00 2.29 2.00 1.62 1.00
7 9 (S)
0.9 1.0 < 0.0001
Q25 3.84 0.59 4.00 2.72 2.00 2.51 2.00
3 2 (S)
Table 11 provides the descriptive statistics for questions related to execution of PMS according
to clusters. A cluster referred as ‘Good execution’ had 275 respondents, while cluster referred as
‘Fair execution’ had 102 respondents and ‘Poor execution’ had 39 respondents. The mean for the
first cluster was 4.03 (SD: 0.19), while for second cluster was 3.63 (SD: 0.83) and third cluster
was 2.91 (SD: 0.84). All the questions showed statistically significant difference of distributions
across three clusters with p-values < 0.05 using Friedman ANOVA test.
Figure 9: Column chart showing mean scores for execution related questions in three clusters
Table 12: Latent Class Analysis for questions related to motivation due to PMS
Model BIC aBIC cAIC
likelihood DF ratio
Model - 3664.2327 3600.7676 3684.2327
1 396 702.3885624
1 1771.809539 84 31 84
Model - 3463.1669 3333.0633 3504.1669
2 375 374.6783003
2 1607.954408 13 49 13
Model 3447.6248 3250.8828 3509.6248
3 -1536.86118 354 232.4918434
3 46 71 46
Model - 3525.4852 3262.1048 3608.4852
4 333 183.7078556
4 1512.469186 49 63 49
Model - 3620.3484 3290.3296 3724.3484
5 312 151.9266211
5 1496.578569 05 08 05
Model - 3725.4439 3328.7867 3850.4439
6 291 130.3778209
6 1485.804169 95 88 95
Table 12 provides the latent class analysis for question related to motivation. Again referring to
BIC criterion, the minimum was observed for model 3 (3.447.62) suggesting three clusters of
respondents. Accordingly, they were partitioned into three groups based on motivation related
questions.
Table 13: Descriptive statistics for questions related to motivation due to PMS according to
clusters
Highly Motivated Moderately MotivatedLess Motivated
Questions (n=190) (n=185) (n=41)
P-value*
Mean SD Median Mean SD Median Mean SD Median
27 4.07 0.60 4.00 3.93 0.72 4.00 3.95 0.63 4.00 0.011 (S)
< 0.0001
35 4.83 0.38 5.00 4.25 0.45 4.00 2.37 0.92 2.00
(S)
< 0.0001
38 4.93 0.40 5.00 4.01 0.15 4.00 4.85 0.65 5.00
(S)
< 0.0001
39 4.06 0.43 4.00 3.91 0.32 4.00 4.61 1.00 5.00
(S)
< 0.0001
40 4.44 0.88 5.00 4.09 1.18 4.00 2.05 0.31 2.00
(S)
Table 13 provides the distribution of respondents in three clusters viz., Highly motivated (190),
moderately motivated (185) and less motivated (41). The mean score for the first cluster was
maximum i.e. 4.46 (SD: 0.41), followed by second cluster with mean of 4.03 (SD: 0.14) and
third with mean of 3.56 (SD: 1.28) across questions. The comparison of score distribution for
each question was performed using Friedman ANOVA. The test revealed that all the questions
had statistically significant distribution across three motivation clusters with a p-value < 0.0001,
except Q27 which had p-value of 0.011.
Figure 10: Column chart showing mean scores for execution related questions in three clusters
Table 14: Effect of PMS design and execution on motivation of employee using multinomial
logistic regression.
Parameter Estimates
95% CI OR
Motivated B SE Wald DF P-value OR Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Intercept -1.521 1.455 1.092 1 0.296
Experience -0.152 0.091 2.799 1 0.094 .859 0.719 1.026
[Design=1] 3.756 1.111 11.426 1 0.001 42.774 4.846 377.580
[Design=2] 1.631 1.179 1.916 1 0.166 5.111 0.507 51.507
Highly [Design=3] Ref
Motivated [Execution=1] 5.145 1.387 13.769 1 <0.0001 171.634 11.332 2599.612
[Execution=2] 2.723 1.132 5.785 1 0.016 15.229 1.655 140.101
[Execution=3] Ref
[Designation=1] 0.117 1.093 0.011 1 0.915 1.124 0.132 9.574
[Designation=2] Ref 0
Intercept -4.112 1.778 5.345 1 0.021
Experience -0.052 0.090 0.336 1 0.562 .949 0.796 1.132
[Design=1] 4.661 1.221 14.565 1 <0.0001 105.715 9.652 1157.869
[Design=2] 3.344 1.260 7.043 1 0.008 28.345 2.398 335.089
Moderately [Design=3] Ref
Motivated [Execution=1] 5.648 1.615 12.236 1 <0.0001 283.689 11.981 6717.072
[Execution=2] 3.842 1.343 8.181 1 0.004 46.600 3.351 648.061
[Execution=3] Ref
[Designation=1] -0.717 1.101 .424 1 0.515 .488 0.056 4.222
[Designation=2] Ref
Ref: Reference level; B: Estimated coefficient; SE: Standard error; Wald: Wald’s test statistics;
DF: Degrees of freedom; OR: Odds ratio
In order to determine the effect of design and execution of PMS on the motivation levels of the
employees, multivariate modeling approach was followed. Each employee was assigned a cluster
membership with reference to design, execution and motivation. Thus, the analysis data set
consisted of design variable at three levels (clusters), execution at three levels and motivation
also at three levels. The first two variables were treated as independent and motivation was
regarded as dependent. Further, years of experience were included in the analysis as independent
covariate and designation as dichotomous variable.
Since, the dependent variable (motivation) has three levels in the ordered manner, ordinal
logistic regression was the right choice to determine the relationship between motivation and
independent predictors. However, the assumption of proportional odds was violated using the
data set, hence, the dependent was treated as multinomial and accordingly the multinomial
logistic regression was performed. The result obtained following this analysis is shown in Table
14.
During analysis, low motivation was regarded as reference level and the effect of changing the
design and execution levels on high and moderate motivation was determined. Further, for
design variable, weak design was treated as reference, while for execution, poor execution was
treated as reference.
4.3 Hypotheses testing
HA1:
Design of Performance Management System has an impact on employee performance.
H01:
Design of Performance management system d o e s n o t h a v e impact on employee
performance
Table 14 shows that for highly motivated level, the coefficient for design-1 (Rational design)
was 3.756 (SE: 1.111) and corresponding p-value of 0.001, while for design-2 (Somewhat
rational design), the coefficient was 1.631 (SE: 1.179) and p-value was 0.166. In other
words, this indicates that the odds of getting highly motivated if the design changes from
weak structure to a rational structure are 42.77 [95% CI: 4.846 – 377.58] as compared to low
level of motivation. This effect was statistically significant (p=0.001). Hence with this p
value we reject the null hypotheses .
The Design of performance management system has an impact on employee performance.
HA2:
The way of execution of Performance Management system h a s a n i m p a c t o n the
performance of the employee.
H02:
The way of execution of Performance management system does not have any impact
on employee performance.
The effect of execution was studied on the change in motivation level. The change from poor
execution to good execution of PMS increases the likelihood of moderate motivation by
283.68 [95% CI: 11.981 – 6717.07] times as compared low motivation. This effect was
statistically significant with p-value < 0.0001. While, change from poor execution to fair
execution of PMS increases the likelihood of moderate motivation by 46.6 [95% CI: 3.351 –
648.061] times as compared to low motivation level. This effect was also statistically
significant with p-value of 0.004. Thus we reject null hypetheses.
HA3:
Performance management System has an impact on employee motivation to perform.
H03:
Performance management System does not hvane an impact on employee motivation to
perform.
the odds of getting highly motivated if the design changes from weak structure to somewhat
rational structure are 5.11 [95% CI: 0.507 – 51.507], as compared to low level of motivation,
although the effect was statistically insignificant (p=0.166). Further, the odds of employee
getting highly motivated when the execution changes from poor to moderate are 15.229 [95%
CI: 1.655 – 140.101] times higher with reference to low motivation level. Both these effects
were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Thus from the p value we reject null hypotheses .
Figure11 -Sankey Plot for Managerial Level
Figure12 -Sankey Plot for Executive Level

11 Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4

MACRO ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN TELECOM

4.1 PMS in Telecom Service Providing Companies in Vidarbha Region

• Tata Teleservices Limited

Tata Teleservices Limited (TTSL) is an Indian broadband and telecommunications service

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (abbreviated BSNL) is an Indian state-owned

4.2 Recent Trends in Performance Management System in Telecom Industry

1. Employees expect the feedback mechanism to be more frequent.

Q2 0 0.00 10 2.40 0 0.00 234 56.25 172 41.35

Figure 1: Pie chart showing distribution of responses to question Q1

1) 24%(99) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 67%(281) Employees Agree

3) 1%(3) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 8%(32) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (1) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 2: Pie chart showing distribution of Responses to question Q2

1) 41%(172) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 56%(234) Employees Agree

3) 0%(0) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 03%(10) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (0) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 3: Pie chart showing distribution of Responses to question Q3

1) 12%(49) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 79%(328) Employees Agree

3) 0%(2) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 9%(37) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (0) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 4: Pie chart showing distribution of Responses to question Q4

1) 4%(16) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 84%(351) Employees Agree

3) 2%(6) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 10%(43) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (0) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 5: Pie chart showing distribution of Responses to question Q5

1) 6%(23) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 85%(351) Employees Agree

3) 1%(5) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 8%(34) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (2) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 6: Pie chart showing distribution of Responses to question Q6

1) 59%(245) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 37%(151) Employees Agree

3) 2%(8) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 2%(9) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (1) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 7: Pie chart showing distribution of Responsesto question Q7

1) 1%(4) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 75%(311) Employees Agree

3) 5%(20) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 19%(79) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (0) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 8: Pie chart showing distribution of Responsesto question Q8

1) 2%(9) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 85%(354) Employees Agree

3) 1%(5) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 12%(47) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (0) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 9: Pie chart showing distribution of Responses to question Q9

1) 7%(27) Employees Strongly Agree

2) 87%(363) Employees Agree

3) 4%(15) Employees Neither Agree nor Disagree

4) 2%(10) Employees Disagree

5) 0% (0) Employee Strongly Disagree

Figure 10: Pie chart showing distribution of Responses to question Q10