Group members

Ume-Amen
HBL Sehrish haroon
Maryam mehmood
Farah sarwar
Performance Syed Danish Hasan

Management System

1
BACKGROUND
PMS is one of the key HR issues at
HBL for last several years.

Several initiatives taken since last

three years indicate some visible
improvements.

There is still a need to focus and

work on improving the process for
moving towards efficiency of the
system.

2
 THE DRIVING FORCES

HBL’S New Vision /

Mission and Values

Employees Feedback
Management
From Climate Survey
& Town Halls Concerns

3
 HBL’s Vision

Enabling People to advance

with confidence and success

4
 The Mission

“To make our And create value

Our staff excel,
customer prosper, For shareholders”

5
 VALUES

Excellence

Integrity
Progressiveness

Meritocracy Customer
Focus

6
 PMS Brief Background

Till 1997

ACR System

- No Linkage of ACR with pay

- Factors of Evaluation were subjective
- Salary increase for “Non Performers”

7
 ACR Days Rating Distribution
# of cases

80%

15%

D C (Good) B (Vary Good) A (Excellent)

(Unsatisfactory)
Performance rating

8
PMS 1998 TO 2005

9
 Bell Curve Introduction 1998 - 2004

Moving from flat across the

board annual salary increase
towards “Pay for performance”
concept 1998

Forced
distribution
required

10
 Bell Curve Distribution
# of cases

60%

20%
10%
6%
D C (Good) B (Vary Good) A (Excellent)
(Unsatisfactory)
Performance rating

11
 Implementation 1998 - 2004

-A four tier performance rating followed by with bell curve

distribution and increase given 2004 was as under
Category Rating Desired Actual

A Outstanding 10% 13%

97%
B Very Good 20% 29%
C Good 60% 55%

D Poor 10% 3%

Only 3% under performers

12
 Other Key Issue Brought up by Officers

Senior Employees keep good ratings between

themselves
Head quarter / Regional functions get higher
ratings
Lower level / field officers get lower rating for
balancing the bell curve

13
 OG III OG II OGI
1800 1600 700
1600 1400 600
1400 1200
500
1200
1000
1000 400
800
800 300
600
600
400 200
400
200 200 100
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

250
AVP 120
VP 80
SVP
70
200 100
60
80
150 50
60 40
100 30
40
20
50 20
10
0 0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

14
PMS 2006

15
 PMS Changes Introduced in 2006

-Balance Measure
concept Introduction
Performance - Performance rating
appraisal system based on function /
revised and modified branch category /
to reduce the areas division
of anomalies and - Last three years
concerns through performance
weighteage concept
continued with focus
recent

16
Management / Feedback Suggestions

- Reinforcement of Bell Curve Implementation

-Simplification of current complicated form
- Minimize subjevctivity
-Standard eveluation criteria for all groups not working
- Implementation standard not seen consistent
- Personal bias perception management

17
 CONCERNS VOICED BY EMPLOYEES
Employee Climate Survey 2007
- Undefined Job Descriptions
Subjectivity
- Objectives / Targets / Job Requirements

Rating System ~ causing - Terminology

frustrations - Lack of transparency

- Perception of Bias results in negative

Inequity and skepticism effects on employees engagement
- De motivation & Low Commitment

Need for periodic

- Mid year review
assessment

18
PMS 2007

19
Core Strategic Shifts – PMS 2007

Alignment with new

Mission - Balanced Measure Approach
- Defining job specific key results
Area for each position / individual
Empowerment of line - Generic job Descriptions with
Management flexibility to change provided
to line management
- Introduction of one page simple to fill form
Form simplification up to AVP level
- Objective performance appraisal introduced
Enhance accountability as one of the key performance indicators
of reporting officers for all supervisor level position

20
 The New HR Paradigm

Since 2005
PMS implemented - Change and re-alignment
in 1998 every year
- Same system 2005
for 6 years 2006
2007

21
OVERVIEW OF NEW PMS

Performance Management System (PMS)

- Strategic Objective

- Modified Performance Management System

- Critical Features & Form

- Rating Scale & Overall Performance Rating

- Checks for Enhancing Transparency

22
PMS – Strategic Objectives

- To Enhance objectivity & transparency in the system

- To make Appraisal Forms user friendly

- To measure performance based on Balance measure

approach

- Standardized format across the board to align

expectations

23
PMS – Current System & Its Issues

- Forms were too complicated and time consuming

- Employees were evaluated on goals most of which were

qualitative in nature hence objectivity issues remained

- Objectives / Key Performance Indicators assigned to

employees did not specify Performance Standards

- Specific Goals related to Customer Satisfaction and

Employees Satisfaction were missing.

24
MODIFIED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Balanced Measure Approach

Customer
Satisfaction

Employee
Satisfaction
Business
Results

25
MODIFIED PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Balanced Measure Approach

- Leadership
- Core Business Goals
BUSINESS RESULTS
- Compliance
- Progressiveness

CUSTOMER - Quality Service

- Compliant Resolution
SATISFACTION - Customer Relationships

EMPLOYEE - Workplace Development

SATISFACTION - Workforce Environment
- Workforce Involvement

26
MODIFIED PMS - Features
- Simplified One Page Appraisal Form
- Defined Critical Job Elements
- Measuring Performance based on Key
Performance Indicators (KPI)
- Groups will define KPIs & Performance
Standards
- Linking KPI with Core Values, Organizational
Objectives & Business Goals
- Introducing Separate Forms for Supervisor &
Officer Level Positions

27
Rating Sales & Overall Performance Rating (OPR)
Performance consistently exceeds the required standards at all times
5 Outstanding – little room for improvements. Highest level of competencies
demonstrated. Demonstrates exemplary performance. (Exceeds
targets by 20%)

Performance is well above the required standards most of the time in

4 Exceeding accomplishing target/objectives/parameters of the assigned task.
Expectations Exceed normal expectations (Exceeds targets by 15%)

Performance is consistent & meets the required

3 Meeting standards/objectives/expectations in all important aspects. Good
Expectations contributor

Performance is inconsistent & behavior sometimes does not meet the

2 Missing basic requirements/expectations. Performance is generally
Expectations acceptable but improvement is needed. (Misses target by 10%)

1 Below Performance falls below expectations on critical factors.

Understanding is inadequate, performance & behavior is inconsistent
Expectations in completing tasks. (Misses target by 15%)

28
Rating Sales & Overall Performance Rating (OPR)

TOTAL (Sum of all encircled / marked points)

Divided by

No. of KPIs

29
 RECOMMENDATIONS

PMS in all organizations in the world has always been a source of

employees concern as it involves human factor despite
sophistication of systems

It is a part of HR strategy to review this process every year and

keep it aligning with the new business requirements and
expectations of management and employees

Free two way communication with line management and

employees will be key to success of the system

30