PMS at Packages Linited

05-737-2008-1
IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM AT PACKAGES LIMITED
After conducting an internal audit in September 1997, Mr Nayab Baig, the Human Resource
Development (HRD) Manager of Packages Ltd, realized that many managers were not
following the recommended practices of the newly introduced performance management
system, referred to as “Performance Planning, Managing and Evaluation (PPM&E)”. Most
managers had done well on performance planning, which included objective setting for
individual performance. However, managers were not even close to where they should have
been on performance managing - the process of working towards achieving performance
objectives. Nayab had introduced the PPM&E system in the company a year ago in
September 1996, and had provided thorough training to the people who were expected to be
involved in its implementation. Nayab was contemplating what he should do to motivate
managers to fully implement the new system. He was also reflecting on what he had learned
during the first year of the system’s introduction and ways to improve its effectiveness. In
addition, he was trying to identify appropriate measures for evaluating the effectiveness of
the system.
COMPANY BACKGROUND
Packages Limited was founded in 1957 as a joint venture between the Wazir Ali Group of
Pakistan and AB Akerlund and Rausing of Sweden. The company was located in Lahore, the
second largest city of Pakistan. It commenced production of its packaging division in 1957.
The company established its own paper and board mill in 1968, with an annual production
capacity of 24,000 tonnes. The mill was built in order to have a greater control over the
supply of raw material used in packaging. Wheat straw, kahi grass and pulp were used as the
primary raw materials for the production of paper and board. In response to increasing
demand, in 1994 the paper and board mill expanded annual production capacity to 50,000
tonnes. In 1996-97, the company made a significant investment in new mill equipment,
which doubled the annual production capacity to 100,000 tonnes.
In addition to its paper and board production, Packages Ltd comprised two other divisions:
Packaging, and Consumer Products (Exhibit 1). Packages Ltd was a publicly traded
This case was written by Professor Anwar Khurshid and Visiting Faculty William Clowney to serve as a basis for class discussion, rather
than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. This material should not be quoted, photocopied or
reproduced without prior written consent of the Lahore University of Management Sciences.
© 2008 Lahore University of Management Sciences

05-737-2008-1
company listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange. The company revenue had grown
substantially over its recent history, from Rs 745 million in 1987 to Rs 3,013 million in 1996.
During the same period, the number of employees had decreased slightly from 2,886 to
2,737.
In 1997, Packages was in the process of implementing a Rs 2.7 billion balancing,

modernization, replacement, and expansion program. This investment was made with the
objective of meeting expected future capacity needs, and to improve the quality of products
in order to remain competitive with local and foreign companies. The company had received
ISO 9001 certification for its Flexible Packaging Department in October 1996, with other
divisions receiving the designation the following year. In addition to everything,
safeguarding the environment was an important goal of the company. The company had
invested heavily in upgrading its environmental controls including a chemical recovery plant,
and a water recycling plant. The company was targeting to achieve ISO 14000
Environmental Standards for its paper and board making operations by 1998.
Packages considered their employees as a key strategic edge in the marketplace. Packages
espoused a lifetime employment concept with its workforce. According to Nayab:
For us at Packages, people are the most important factor. We do not seek employees,
only people who can think, feel, express themselves, learn, and hence grow. Their
growth is the company’s growth. That’s how personal it is for us. Lifetime
employment versus lifelong employability is therefore not a debate here.
In 1997, Packages employed approximately 2,800 people, of which 800 worked in the paper
and board mill, with the rest divided between the other two divisions. Professional education
and manpower analyses for the total company are provided in Exhibits 2 and 3. An
organization chart of the company is shown in Exhibit 4.
THE NEED FOR A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
In January 1996, when Nayab joined Packages as Human Resource Development Manager,
there was no system of formal performance evaluation in the company. Absence of a formal
system allowed for subjective judgments in the areas of performance evaluation, promotions
and succession planning. The common complaints were that promotions and salary increases
were not linked to performance. Individual objectives, deadlines and expected standards of
performance were not always defined, which made it difficult for managers to distinguish
high performers from average performers. There were complaints from the junior staff and
colleagues that feedback on performance was either non-existent or inadequate. These
employees felt that they were not given feedback in the early stages of a problem when
corrective action could still be taken, but rather were informed only after a major mistake had
been made. Furthermore, the training and development needs were frequently seen as being
inadequately identified. However an informal performance management system did exist.
Saulat Said, Deputy General Manager of the company, recalled the evolution of the informal
2
05-737-2008-1
performance evaluation system:
It started out as informal, but it worked because there were fewer employees at that
time and an individual’s performance could be discussed by many different managers.
This tended to cancel out any potential biases of any one particular manager.
After talking to several managers from various departments, Nayab recognized an immediate
need for a formal comprehensive performance management system in the company. His first
task was to convince the top management of the need to formalize the system. Nayab gave a
presentation to the top management in which he emphasized the importance of a performance
management system as a tool for managing people and virtually everything relating to their
performance. He also invited a manager from a well-known multinational company that had
their own performance management system, to make a presentation to the Packages senior
management regarding their (the company’s) experience. According to Nayab, “Convincing
the top management about the need (for a performance management system) took longer than
expected. They wanted to be sure that the new system would not become a bureaucratic
exercise, but would be something which would add value to the company.” After numerous
discussions, senior management gave initial approval to the HRD to develop the new system.
It took Nayab a couple of months to design the new Performance Planning, Managing and
Evaluation (PPM&E) system. It was a totally customized, in-house design effort. The
following were some of the key objectives of the PPM&E program:
• Provide feedback to the employee regarding the quality of their current performance and
identify steps to improve future performance. The employee would thereby know in
advance the performance criteria.
• Serve as a steady guideline for the employee by outlining job objectives and the means
for attaining personal objectives.
• Provide criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the company’s hiring decisions
(including which candidate attributes were most likely to indicate a successful
placement).
• Give formal recognition for superior performance.
• Serve as an effective tool for determining promotions, demotions, transfers, retentions,

retirements, developments, compensation, and other organizational objectives.
• Provide an opportunity for the employee and the manager to discuss new assignments
and job options.
• Generate useful information upon which work scheduling plans, budgeting and human
resource planning could be based.
• Establish criteria for evaluating the success of training and development decisions.
3
05-737-2008-1
• Increase the motivation, commitment and productivity of the employee.
In August 1996, after a period of approximately six months, Packages management gave the
go ahead for the implementation of the newly designed system.
PERFORMANCE PLANNING, MANAGING AND EVALUATION

SYSTEM
As the name suggested, PPM&E system consisted of three main components (Exhibit 5):
1. Performance Planning, 2. Performance Managing, and 3. Performance Evaluation.
During the Performance Planning stage, the employee and manager mutually agreed upon the
key performance objectives to be achieved during the year; established the standards of
performance against which the objectives were to be evaluated, and agreed to a time frame
during which the objectives were to be achieved.
Performance Management was considered a year-round activity. It had two functions; to

provide immediate feedback on employee performance at any time during the year and to
establish and maintain monthly performance records.
During the Performance Evaluation stage, the manager reviewed and assessed the employee
performance against the previously agreed upon performance standards. The Performance
Evaluation was then conducted in a one-on-one session with the employee.
Performance Planning Stage

Performance planning was the process of identifying the desired employee performance and
gaining employee commitment to meet those expectations. Performance planning enabled the
manager to confirm that the employee had the information necessary for making the right
choices about what to do and how to do it.
Senior management believed that performance planning should be a top-down process, i.e.
the sum of a particular department’s employee objectives should meet or exceed the
department head’s objectives and the department head’s objectives should meet or exceed the
division’s objectives. The combined division objectives would thereby equal the corporate
objectives. Performance planning would be an integrated process with individual employee
objectives supporting the division and corporate objectives.
Thus the manager had to first complete his or her own individual performance planning prior
to setting performance plans for direct reports. Once the manager determined his or her own
objectives, these objectives would be distributed. The manager could involve the employee in
establishing employee’s individual performance plan, so that the employee would feel greater
ownership. To involve employee in the performance planning, the manager would schedule
a performance planning meeting with each direct report.
4
05-737-2008-1
Prior to the performance planning meeting, the manager would provide a draft of the
contemplated employee performance objectives for the performance review period.
Typically, these employee objectives would contribute towards the manager’s personal
objectives as well. The employee would also be encouraged to prepare his own draft, listing
any additional objectives that the employee would like to pursue during the performance
review period.
During the performance planning meeting, the manager and the employee would discuss the
objectives that the manager wanted to see achieved. The manager would inform the
employee regarding the expected performance level while keeping in mind his own
performance objectives and the capability and potential of the employee. He would also
review the employee’s own personal draft and solicit additional comments. Then the
manager and the employee would reach an agreement on a set of key objectives, standards of
performance and the time period for achieving those objectives.
The issues of performance standards and performance measurements in the Performance

Planning stage were considered as an important part of the overall performance improvement
process (Exhibit 6). The employee’s subsequent performance during the year would then be
compared to the standards previously set; thereby providing a feedback on the setting of
performance standards and performance measurement issues. In order to have a systematic
record of employee performance plan, evaluation, and competencies the Performance
Planning and Evaluation form was developed (Exhibits 7a-7f).
Once the key objectives were identified and agreed upon, the manager listed by order of
importance those key performance objectives on the Performance Planning and Evaluation
form (Exhibit 7b). Here the manager also noted the mutually agreed upon performance
standards. The manager then assigned a relative weight to each objective. An employee’s
overall performance evaluation was dependent upon two factors: (a) actual performance on
the present job – (percentage weighting 68%) and (b) competency of the individual -
(percentage weighting 32%). Both manager and employee then signed the Performance
Planning and Evaluation forms.
Packages believed that their corporate business environment was changing rapidly, with new
technology, continuous quality improvement, globalization of business, and environmental
protection concerns placing a huge demand on their employees. Packages wanted employees
who could adapt quickly to changing circumstances.
Nayab introduced the concept of competencies in the overall performance management

process. He defined competency as follows:
At a certain stage, performance evaluation based exclusively upon present job

performance (looking backwards in order to look forwards) becomes insufficient as a
predictor of future employee performance. At this stage you also require something
else to determine who your best performers are. You must look at the dimension of
employee behaviour that is relevant to performance on the job. This behaviour is
known as competency.
5
05-737-2008-1
Two separate sets of competencies were identified: one set for senior level managers (as
shown in Exhibit 7f), and the second set for all other managers (shown in Exhibits 7d). The
important competency dimensions included communication skills, work organization, result
orientation, team player, customer consciousness, self-confidence, leadership qualities,
development orientation, strategic vision, business know-how, critical reasoning, human
resource development, decision making and exercise of leadership. Each competency was
further defined as a cluster of “behaviour indicators” that made up the competency (based
upon the derived behaviours of the high performers). As seen with Exhibit 7d, “Work
Organization” and “Customer Consciousness” were two of the desired competencies. The
following were the behavioral indicators to indicate the level of competencies:
Work organization Customer Consciousness

• Identifies and sets priorities. • Stays close to the customer. Learns the customer
needs and preferences and caters to them.
• Thinks back from deadlines. • Suffers personal inconvenience to ensure
customer satisfaction.
• Identifies the task. • Maintains a high ratio of direct customer calls.
• Schedules elements of the task. • Has a low ratio of customer complaints.
• Anticipates resource needs. • Deals with customer requirements promptly and
efficiently.
• Allocates resources to task. • Has a strong focus on quality. Ensures that
customers are provided quality products.
• Sets objectives for junior colleagues. • Receptive to feedback from customers. Does not
wait to receive feedback; asks instead.
• Manages own time.
Follow Up to the Performance Planning Meeting
Upon approval, the Division Manager signed the employee’s Performance Plan form, thus
indicating his or her desire that the employee would achieve his or her goals. The manager
kept the original form, with copies being given to both the employee and Nayab.
In case of any unanticipated priorities arising after the performance planning meeting, the
“Post Discussion Objectives” section (Exhibit 7b) was provided. This section allowed for an
additional weightage up to 0.10 out of 0.68, if additional priorities were assigned during the
course of the year. This additional assessment would be done at the end of the review period.
Performance Management Stage

Performance managing was defined as the day-to-day process of working towards the agreed
upon performance objectives. Performance plans were developed prior to the start of the
performance review period. Thereafter during the review period, the manager and employee
communicated through a process called Performance Managing.
6
05-737-2008-1
The manager used the Monthly Performance Record form (Exhibit 8) to help assess the
performance of the employee. The form recorded monthly employee information on actual
performance and competency behavioral indicators. Each manager was supposed to list the
performance and competency noted during each month. He was expected to mention the
employee’s most outstanding performance achievements or areas where coaching was
needed. If the manager noticed a certain behaviour or performance (as indicated in the
competency list) he would record the example in the Monthly Performance Record as soon as
possible. The manager was not expected to wait until the end of the month to record these
observations. The monthly performance record was confidential and audited by Nayab only.
Nayab was to conduct sample audits throughout the year of each manager’s updated
performance records.
Formal Quarterly Review of Performance

In the quarterly review, the manager and the employee together reviewed the employee’s
performance over the previous three months. Without completing the PPM&E form, the
employee performance was compared against the planned objectives. The manager gave
performance feedback to the employee. This quarterly face-to-face meeting enabled the
manager to identify any potential problems with the employee’s performance plan. If a
problem did exist with the plan, the necessary changes could be made. The divisional
manager and HRD manager were then informed of the changes.
Performance Evaluation Stage

The performance evaluation was done in a once-a-year meeting between the manager and the
employee. Its purpose was to assess employee’s performance against the objectives set
during the performance planning phase. The performance evaluation meeting formally ended
the performance review period.
Performance Evaluation Meeting
Before the meeting:
• The manager informed the employee of the meeting a few days prior, in order to allow
the employee sufficient time to prepare and or gather any performance-related data.
• The manager gathered the data on the past year’s performance and competency. Most of
the information was gathered from the individual employee’s Monthly Performance
Record form.
• The manager completed the Performance Evaluation form (Exhibit 7c). He was expected
to complete the evaluation form well in advance of the performance evaluation meeting.
Against each key performance objective the employee’s actual achievement was written.
The percentage achievement was recorded in the box provided. The percentage
achievement was then multiplied with the objective weighing to arrive at the weight
percentage. The total weight percentage for each objective was added up to get the total
score, out of maximum 68%.
• The manager next completed the Competency Dimensions form (Exhibit 7d). Against
7
05-737-2008-1
each competency, comments were recorded, with observed examples illustrating the
employee strengths and weaknesses. Each competency was rated on a scale of 0-4. For
higher grades a different competency form was used (Exhibit 7f)
• Next the manager completed Sections IV and V of Exhibit 7e. In Section VII (Exhibit
7e) the manager entered any additional pertinent information regarding the employee’s
performance.
• The divisional manager reviewed the completed evaluation form prior to the performance
evaluation meeting between the manager and employee.
During the meeting
• During the meeting, the employee and manager discussed the employee performance
objectives, standards of performance and time frame (Exhibit 7b).
• Examples of performance and competency were taken from the Monthly Performance
Record form. The employee was then asked for any input.
• Next, the manager gave suggestions on improving employee performance while the
employee was asked to develop a performance improvement plan. The mutually agreed
upon performance improvement plan was then documented in Section VI (Exhibit 7e).
• The employee could then provide their own comments in Section VII, if desired.
• The employee and manager then signed and dated the evaluation form.
Nayab saw certain patterns when reviewing the completed evaluation forms:
While we shouldn’t over-generalize, there nevertheless were certain consistencies

regarding well prepared forms versus the poorly prepared. In general, the managers
who had better completed forms were younger (with lower length of service); had
some exposure to the social sciences during their education; often had the benefit of
more years of education, and were also part of a division where the division head was
seen as being thoroughly committed to the process.
Representative “good” and “bad” evaluation forms are included in Exhibits 9 and 10.
Follow Up to the Performance Evaluation Meeting

The original form was next sent to the divisional manager for review and signature. If major
discrepancies existed between the manager and the employee, they would be resolved at this
stage. The original form was sent to the HRD manager for his review and signature. The
manager kept a copy of the approved form.
Implementation of the System

To help employees set their objectives and to understand the system, Nayab held a series of
8
05-737-2008-1
sessions with various areas of the company. In each session, Nayab would describe the
PPM&E system, the need for the system, the benefits of the system, and the process of
executing the system. It took approximately one month to talk to the managers and
employees who would be affected by the system. Each session ran for about three hours.
During the last quarter of 1996, the system was implemented as a test exercise. Seventy
managers participated in this pilot run. The exercise was limited to performance objective-
setting only; the competency dimension was not introduced at that time. Many of the
managers found themselves setting objectives for the first time. Nayab had meetings with
almost all of them to discuss the objective-setting process. By mid-October, the objectives
had been set. In December, prior to the evaluations, an outside consultant was hired to train
the managers on how to conduct the performance evaluation. During this program, seventy
managers were taught how to communicate, what should be the talking and listening ratio,
what issues should be discussed, etc. This training program was considered essential in order
to make the performance evaluation meetings productive.
Starting in 1997, the system was implemented on a company-wide basis. Later during the
year, Nayab’s internal audits revealed that while managers had done fairly well with the
setting of objectives, they were not regularly following the performance managing process.
The managers were not keeping up-to-date with the monthly performance records.
Furthermore, the performance and competency behavioral indicators were not being recorded
in adequate detail.
Nayab was aware that the process would meet a certain initial resistance. However, he
believed that the process was a crucial tool for more effective management. In the PPM&E,
he underscored this very point:
For the system to be successful and beneficial, it must be fairly comprehensive. This
particular program may be criticized by some on the grounds that it will take too
much time. True, it does take time, certainly more time than is required to put a few
checkmarks on a standard rating sheet. But consider two important points. First, as a
manager, what is your role? Is it not planning, organizing, directing, controlling,
innovating and motivating? Thus, if someone suggests that the manager does not
have time to do this, it implies that the manager has no time to manage, and wants to
revert back to the old “do” part of the job, i.e. not manage.
COMMENTS FROM MANAGERS

Managers commonly complained that too much time was required and that the system was
too lengthy and complicated. Some senior managers were actually conducting the
performance reviews that were their subordinate’s responsibility, because these lower-level
managers felt inadequate to the task. As a result, some senior managers were completing
evaluation forms for fourteen employees.
One manager commented, “They could have had a simpler system such as the rating system.”
9
05-737-2008-1
Nayab, however, considered a rating system to be inadequate:
A rating system, although very easy to use, does not give any results from which we
could create changes. It does not improve productivity, especially when we talk
about executive level people. I believe that this system will take time to be accepted
and digested, and once that has happened, the results would be beneficial to the
organization. This will improve the productivity of our executives through a system
of feedback, coaching, and constant performance reviews throughout the year. This,
in turn, is going to improve the organization as a whole. I do not think that the rating
system could give the same sort of results.
Another manager commented:
The system is good, but it will take time to be absorbed in the company culture.
Previously there was no system for record keeping of employee’s performance.
There are some problems with the system as well, for example, after the filling up of
objectives the follow up is difficult due to shortage of time. Ideally the performance
evaluation should be updated on a daily basis, rather than based on some recent
happenings. But again having adequate time is an issue. As far as the competency
part is concerned which is 32%, it is difficult to observe the behavioral indicators.
You can assess the leadership qualities of your employee, but it is difficult to observe
the qualities when the employee is interacting with his coworkers. Personal likes and
dislikes about the employee may also come into play. A good thing about the system
is that the training and development needs of the employees are satisfied.
A senior engineer shared his views, “As far as the objective-setting is concerned, it is not
being done properly. Sometimes the objectives are not relevant to the present job or become
unachievable due to lack of training or resources in that particular area. The manager
sometimes asks for just written objectives, and eventually nothing is achieved. Even
objectives are ignored in the day-to-day work load and the focus is lost.”
Another manager said, “The system is good if the documentation is there. The company’s
objectives should be well-defined, so that when we set the objectives they are clear and well
defined. The objectives should be implemented in full from top to bottom. Some of the
objectives given to me cannot be transferred to others down the line, such as training course
attendance, etc. The percentage of increments in the salary is fixed and the employee is not
satisfied no matter how they perform.”
According to another manager, “The system is more ideal than practical and it is time
consuming as well. We have no corporate culture to maintain this system. Firstly, there is
no demarcation and specification of duties in my department, so it is not easy to specify the
objectives and performance issues for the employees. Sometimes the pressures from senior
management to meet the deadlines change the focus of objectives. Secondly, there are
personal likes and dislikes of managers regarding employees.”
The employees whose performances were reviewed had concerns as well. The comments of
one seemed typical, “The system seems good, but I wonder whether the completed form has
10
05-737-2008-1
any direct impact on my salary increase or how management truly views my performance.”
THE FUTURE
Nayab believed that the company could benefit greatly by utilizing more thoroughly the
PPM&E system. The system could add value by impacting key “people issues”: promotions,
successions, salaries, increments, training, motivating and productivity. However, an internal
audit indicated that although most managers had done relatively well on objective setting,
they were not regularly following the performance managing process. This meant that the
full benefits of the system were not being realized. Indeed, unless the performance managing
process is followed, the system may become just a form filling exercise with no value
addition. Nayab felt that in order to derive value from the system, the performance managing
section must be utilized.
What should Nayab do at this stage to ensure successful implementation of the PPM&E
system? How could he improve the motivation level of managers to implement the new
system more effectively? Furthermore, how could he measure the effectiveness of the
PPM&E system in terms of the impact it has on the people and the organization?
11
Exhibit 1
IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES LIMITED
Major Businesses of
Packages Ltd
Paper and Board Mill Consumer Products

Packaging Division
Division Division
Corrugated
Flexible Line Carton Line
Container Line
Source: Company Record

Exhibit 2
Packages Limited
Professional Education Statistics
SPECIALTY NOS.
Technical: Ph.D. 4
Engineers 74
M.Sc. 13
Diploma Engineers 227
B.Sc. 58 376
Finance & Commercial: Chartered Accountants 2
F.C.M.A. /A.C.M.A 3
I.C.M.A. / (Finalist/Part III) 6
M.Com 3
B.Com 53 67
General Management: M.B.A / M.P.A. / M.B.E 38
M.A. 23
B.A. 52 113
TOTAL: 556
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3
Packages Limited
Manpower
Total 2,712
Less Than 10 Years Service 970
Between 11 and 20 Years 687
Between 21 and 30 Years 765
Above 30 years 290
2,712
Executive and Management Staff 407
Supervisors 183
Workers 2,122
2,712
September 1996
Exhibit 4
E xh ib i t 4
Packages L im ited
O rgan izational C hart
Board of Directors
Executive Board
A dvisor Managing Director
General Manager
and Director
System R& D Production Finance Mi ll IR Admi n. Technical Deputy General

Manager Manager Managers Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager
Marketing Commercial Projects HRD Manager Store

Manager Manager Manager Manager & Inventory
So u rc e: C o m pan y Record
Exhibit 6
Packages Limited
Performance Improvement Process
Adjust Standard Adjust Performance
Establish Establish Establish Compare Take

If
Performance Performance Performance Performance Corrective
Objectives Standards Measurements to Standards Action
Inadequate
If Adequate
Provide
Reinforcement
Source: Packages Ltd - PPM&E Manual

Exhibit 7a
Source: Packages Ltd – PPM&E Manual

Exhibit 7b (Continued)
(1)
SECTION-I
PERFORMANCE PLAN
Identify key objective. Make these as quantifiable as possible. For each objective identify the standard of
performance desired and the time during which the objective is to be achieved. Assign weightage
according to objective priority.
KEY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE TIME FRAME
1. Weight
2. Weight
3. Weight
4. Weight
5. Weight
POST DISCLUSSION OBJECTIVES Weight
EMPLOYEE AND MANAGER HAVE MUTUALLY IDENTIFIED AND AGREED UPON KEY PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
EMPLOYEE DATE MANAGER

SECOND LEVEL REVIEW:
DIVISION MANAGER DATE

Exhibit 7c (Continued)
(2)
SECTION-II
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
PERCENTAGE
ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST KEY OBJECTIVES
ACHIEVEMENT WEIGHTED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
POST DISCLUSSION OBJECTIVES
TOTAL SECTION-II SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 68%) %

Source: Package Ltd – PPM&E Manual
Exhibit 7d (Continued)
(3)
SECTION-III
COMPETENCY DIMENSIONS
COMPETENCY O
U
V T
COMMENT ON CRITICAL INCIDENTS E S
A R T
OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
V Y A
E N
P R G G D
O A O O I
O G O O N
R E D D G
SCORE 0 1 2 3 4
1. COMMUNICATION SKILLS
2.WORK ORGANIZATION
3. RESULT ORIENTATION
4.TEAM PLAYER
5.CUSTOMER CONSCIOUSNESS
6.SELF – CONFIDENCE
7.LEADERSHIP QUALITIES
8.DEVELOPMENT ORIENTATION
TOTAL SECTION-III SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 32%) %

Exhibit 7e (Continued)
(4)
SECTION-IV PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULT

A. SECTION-II SCORE = --------------------
TOTAL SCORE (A+B) = %
B. SECTION-III SCORE = --------------------
SECTION-V STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

Strengths Limitations
SECTION-VI PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Schedule a training and development meeting to discuss T&D needs and action plans and to formulate new performance plan
SECTION-VII EMPLOYEE COMMENTS MANAGER COMMENTS
___________ ______ ___________ ______

EMPLOYEE DATE MANAGER DATE
SECOND LEVEL REVIEWS:
____________________ ______ ________________ ______

DIVISION MANAGER DATE HRD MANAGER DATE

Exhibit 7f (Continued)
(5)
SECTION-III
MANAGEMENT EDITION
COMPETENCY O
U
V T
A R T
V Y A
E N
P R G G D
O A O O I
O G O O N
R E D D G
SCORE 0 1 2 3 4
1. STRATEGIC VISIONING
2.BUSINESS KNOWHOW
3. CRITICAL REASONING
4.HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMKENT
5.CUSTOMER CONSCIOUSNESS
6.DECISION MAKING
7.EXERCISE OF LEADERSHIP
8.COMMUNICATION SKILLS
TOTAL SECTION-III SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 32%) %

Exhibit 8
IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES

LIMITED
CONFIDENTIAL
EMPLOYEE NAME: _____________________________
P PACKAGES LIMITED EMPLOYEE NO: _____________________________

MONTHLY PERFORMANCE RECORD
List the most salient features of the employees performance / competency during each month. Mention
the employees most outstanding achievements, or areas where coaching was required.
MONTH
ACTUAL PERFORMANCE COMPETENCY BEHAVIOURAL
INDICATORS
January
February
March Quarterly Review of Performance and T&D Action Plans
April
May

Exhibit 8 (Continued)
IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES

LIMITED
June Quarterly Review of Performance and T&D Action Plans
July
August
September Quarterly Review of Performance and T&D Action Plans
October
November
December
Schedule a time for the employees performance evaluation

Exhibit 9
Manager must read the guideline on PPM&E before attempting to fill this
form and before entering into any discussion on performance planning and
evaluation.
Manager must read the guideline on PPM&E before attempting to fill this form and
before entering into any discussion on performance planning and evaluation.
Please type or write in block capitals.

SECTION-I
PERFORMANCE PLAN
1. Close all monthly accounts by the Weight
sixth of every month. 0.1
100% accuracy Monthly
2. Arrange repayment along-with Weight

interest of all outstanding long 0.17
When due
term loans as per payment (0.08) 100% accuracy
Monthly
schedule
**
3. Document Accounting Manual Weight
related to Loans 0.12 Manual should depict the controls
and suggestions should come for April 25, 1998
further improvement
4. Check following sectional work Weight

i) Imports 0.15
ii) Inventory 100% accuracy Daily
iii) Insurance & Leasing
iv) Fixed Assets
5. Weight
i) Complete training & develop- 0.07 i) Impact of training and
ment objectives development should improve the Mar-Dec 98
ii) Audit inventory section from external efficiency and quality of work
auditors ii) Auditors should be satisfied Aug 98
When due
100% accuracy
** Accrual of financial charges on monthly Monthly
basis 0.09
March 30, 1998


SECTION-II
PERCENTAGE
1. Monthly closing was done on time however there were certain

instances where JV’s were posted in the 2nd stage 85% 0.09
2. a) Interest and principle amount of loans have been paid as per

schedule
80% 0.136
b) Accruals of financial charges were accurate, however there were
certain adjustments and the work was not done independently
3. System of loans not documented completely and proposals were

also not suggested. 60% 0.072
4. i) He has completed his training and development objectives,

however he should concentrate more on computer skills.
ii) Completed 90% 0.135
5. Completed 90% 0.126
0.56
TOTAL SECTION-II SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 68%)
82 %
February 13, 1999

SECTION-III
COMPETENCY O
U
V T
A R T
V Y A
E N
P R G G D
O A O O I
O G O O N
R E D D G
SCORE 0 1 2 3 4
2. COMMUNICATION SKILLS X
2.WORK ORGANIZATION X
3. RESULT ORIENTATION X
4.TEAM PLAYER X
5.CUSTOMER CONSCIOUSNESS X
6.SELF – CONFIDENCE X
7.LEADERSHIP QUALITIES X
8.DEVELOPMENT ORIENTATION X
0.14
TOTAL SECTION-III SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 32%) 44 %


A. SECTION-II SCORE = 0.56 = 56 / 68
TOTAL SCORE (A+B) = 70 %
B. SECTION-III SCORE = 0.14 = 14 / 32

- Co-operative - Computer know how

- Team Player - Lack of initiative
- Honest - Dependent
He should concentrate more on his limitations. He should take initiative

regarding projected cash flow and financial charges. He should take guidance
from his seniors regarding above.
I shall try to overcome these limitations. He came in this section last year. Nature of
his current job is totally different from the
previous jobs. He has tried to manage it
but he should concentrate more on his
limitations to improve his work in future.
___________ Feb 13, 99 ___________ ______

____________________ April 20, 99 ________________ ______


Exhibit 10

SECTION-I
PERFORMANCE PLAN
1. Meet the daily program given by Weight
All the jobs scheduled for a
PLNG.. 0.3
particular day should reach PLNG
JUN – DEC 98
till 11:00 a.m. next day
Allowance 10%
2. Reduce the mistakes in jobs. Weight
0.28 Job should be perfect in all respects
JUN – DEC 98
Allowance 10%
3. Weight
4. Weight
5. Weight

0.00
12-06-98


SECTION-II
PERCENTAGE
1. Almost 90% achievement of the objective. 0.27
2. Almost 90% achievement of the objective as per record. 0.25
3.
0.52
4.
0.61
5.
TOTAL SECTION-II SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 68%)

90 %
04.01.1999

SECTION-III
COMPETENCY O
U
V T
A R T
V Y A
E N
P R G G D
O A O O I
O G O O N
R E D D G
SCORE 0 1 2 3 4
1. COMMUNICATION SKILLS X
2.WORK ORGANIZATION X
3. RESULT ORIENTATION X
4.TEAM PLAYER X
5.CUSTOMER CONSCIOUSNESS X
6.SELF-CONFIDENCE X
7.LEADERSHIP QUALITIES X
8.DEVELOPMENT ORIENTATION X
29
TOTAL SECTION-III SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 32%) 91 %


A. SECTION-II SCORE = 61
TOTAL SCORE (A+B) = 90 %
B. SECTION-III SCORE = 29

- Very hardworking lady - Needs further stressing in the

knowledge of the requirements
of different departments
Feedback and guidance from I/C on regular basis for improving the quality of
work.
Very good worker.
___________ 04.01.99 ___________ 04.01.99

____________________ __________ ________________ 09.04.97


PMS at Packages Linited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PMS at Packages Linited

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

PMS at Packages Linited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

05-737-2008-1

IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

© 2008 Lahore University of Management Sciences

In 1997, Packages was in the process of implementing a Rs 2.7 billion balancing,

THE NEED FOR A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

performance evaluation system:

• Give formal recognition for superior performance.

• Serve as an effective tool for determining promotions, demotions, transfers, retentions,

• Increase the motivation, commitment and productivity of the employee.

PERFORMANCE PLANNING, MANAGING AND EVALUATION

Performance Management was considered a year-round activity. It had two functions; to

Performance Planning Stage

The issues of performance standards and performance measurements in the Performance

Nayab introduced the concept of competencies in the overall performance management

At a certain stage, performance evaluation based exclusively upon present job

Work organization Customer Consciousness

Follow Up to the Performance Planning Meeting

Performance Management Stage

Formal Quarterly Review of Performance

Performance Evaluation Stage

Performance Evaluation Meeting

Before the meeting:

During the meeting

While we shouldn’t over-generalize, there nevertheless were certain consistencies

Follow Up to the Performance Evaluation Meeting

Implementation of the System

COMMENTS FROM MANAGERS

Nayab, however, considered a rating system to be inadequate:

Another manager commented:

IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES LIMITED

IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES LIMITED

Paper and Board Mill Consumer Products

Source: Company Record

IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES LIMITED

IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES LIMITED

IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES LIMITED

A dvisor Managing Director

System R& D Production Finance Mi ll IR Admi n. Technical Deputy General

Marketing Commercial Projects HRD Manager Store

IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT PACKAGES LIMITED

Adjust Standard Adjust Performance

Establish Establish Establish Compare Take

Source: Packages Ltd - PPM&E Manual

Source: Packages Ltd – PPM&E Manual

POST DISCLUSSION OBJECTIVES Weight

EMPLOYEE DATE MANAGER

DIVISION MANAGER DATE

Source: Packages Ltd – PPM&E Manual

POST DISCLUSSION OBJECTIVES

TOTAL SECTION-II SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 68%) %

EMPLOYEE DATE MANAGER

TOTAL SECTION-III SCORE (OUT OF A MAXIMUM OF 32%) %

SECTION-IV PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULT

SECTION-V STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS

SECTION-VI PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN

___________ ______ ___________ ______

SECOND LEVEL REVIEWS:

____________________ ______ ________________ ______

Source: Packages Ltd – PPM&E Manual

4.HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMKENT

_____ _

________

_____ Feb 13, 99 _ __

__________ April 20, 99

_ 04.01.99 _ 04.01.99

__ 09.04.97