t

os
W15151

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT ATTOCK REFINERY

rP
LIMITED

Dr. Sadia Nadeem and Ruhma Islam wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to
illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other
identifying information to protect confidentiality.

yo
This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) [email protected]; www.iveycases.com.

Copyright © 2015, Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation Version: 2015-05-05

In today’s highly competitive and performance driven business climate, both globally and locally,
op
we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. Our highly professional and dedicated human resources
[team] works in a culture supportive of openness, fairness, meritocracy, team knowledge sharing
and innovation in the relentless pursuit of continual improvement and achieving excellence.
— M. Adil Khattak, chief executive officer, Attock Refinery Limited

After attending the management committee meeting in November 2013 at the company offices in Morgah
tC

Rawalpindi, Pakistan, Asif Saeed, senior manager, Human Resources, at Attock Refinery Limited (ARL),
thought about how to improve performance appraisals. The meeting minutes drew his attention to the
proposal of altering the weightings of performance objectives and competencies in the current system. As
secretary of the performance appraisal committee (PAC), Saeed had observed that the performance
management system (PMS) was not providing what he had been hoping for.

Since he took charge of the HR office 10 years ago, Saeed had aimed to incorporate a robust
No

performance-oriented culture at ARL congruent with the vision philosophy of the company’s chief
executive officer (CEO). Although employees had a positive perception of the current appraisal system,
the issue that prevailed persistently was that everyone got more or less the same performance ratings.
Saeed reflected on whether a system that gave almost equal ratings and increments to all could contribute
to elevating a performance-oriented culture. Was a change needed?

COMPANY BACKGROUND
Do

The Attock Group of Companies was a vertically integrated oil conglomerate in Pakistan with
operations in oil exploration, refining, manufacturing of petroleum products, chemicals, manufacturing
and trading of cement, real estate and other sectors. A subsidiary of Attock Group of Companies, ARL
was headquartered in Morgah Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 2 9B15C015

t
os
Incorporated in 1922, the company was a major player in the Pakistani oil industry. As a pioneer in crude
oil refining, the company owned state-of-the-art hardware with the production capacity of 43,000 barrels
per day (BPD) to ensure its competitiveness in the industry and cope up with upcoming challenges.1 The
company secured its strategic importance by refining 70 per cent of the local crude oil in Pakistan in its
two wholly owned refineries located in the north and south regions of the country.

rP
The financials for 2008 to 2013 were a reflection of ARL’s commitment to improving the health of the
company over time (Exhibit 1). By 2013, the company’s net sales had reached Rs.163,301 million, gross
profit had risen to Rs.3,029 million and net profit was Rs.3,916 million. An accelerated earnings per share
of Rs.46 in 2013 was an attractive indicator for potential investors. Khattak’s vision of continuous
improvement and a performance-oriented culture was reflected in the company’s mission statement:

[Our mission is] to be a model diversified energy resources and petrochemical organization

yo
exceeding expectations of all stakeholders. We will achieve this by utilizing [the] best blend of
state-of-the-art technologies, high performing people, excellent business processes and synergetic
organizational culture.

ARL believed that employees shared a camaraderie and influence that, if lost, would have an impact on
its overall corporate culture. Thus, the company channeled its efforts into maintaining and developing its
human resources. It committed to and believed in its strict adherence of core values at all levels. They
formed the foundation on which work was performed and employees conducted themselves. These
op
standards of behaviour were displayed in meeting rooms to inculcate a climate of excellence. There were
six core values that served as personal guidelines for ARL’s personnel to accelerate success:

 Integrity and Ethics: Integrity, honesty and high ethical, legal and safe standards are cornerstones of
our business practices.
 Quality: We pursue quality as a way of life. It is an attitude that affects everything we do for
tC

relentless pursuit of excellence.

 Social Responsibility: We believe in respect for the community and preserving the environment for
our future generations and keeping national interests paramount in all our actions.
 Learning and Innovation: We embrace lifelong learning and innovation as an essential catalyst for our
future success. We believe in continuous improvement and to seize opportunities inherent in change
to shape the future.
 Teamwork: We believe that competent and satisfied people are the company’s heart, muscle and soul.
No

We savour flashes of genius in the organization’s life by reinforcing an attitude of team work and
knowledge sharing based on mutual respect, trust and openness.
 Empowerment: We flourish under an ecosystem of shared understanding founded on the concept of
empowerment, accountability and open communication in all directions.2

A Value and Ethics Committee had been formed to ensure adherence to the core values and related codes
and policies. ARL employees were encouraged and enabled to accomplish the company’s strategic goals
and secure its financial prosperity.
Do

1
Company documents, Corporate Profile.
2
Company documents, Corporate Profile: Core Values.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 3 9B15C015

t
HUMAN RESOURCES AT ARL

os
ARL’s 385 management staff (regular and contract) were divided into nine specialized departments:
Maintenance, Operations, Technical Services, Engineering, Finance and Corporate Affairs (F&CA),
Human Resources and Administration (HR&A), Commercial and Material Management (C&MM),
Health, Safety, Environment and Quality (HSEQ) and Business Review and Assurance (BR&A). As

rP
mentioned, ARL believed that its success depended on the efforts of its employees, so major HR
initiatives were taken from time to time to develop HR capital. Some of these projects are outlined below.

1. Employee Development and Training: ARL firmly believed that well-trained personnel could help the
company maintain leadership in the refining industry so it had developed training and development
strategies to enhance technical and managerial competence for current and future organizational
requirements. Training plans were an effective part of the company’s performance management

yo
strategy and addressed succession planning, career plans, etc. For example, the Skill Development
Initiative trained technical staff to use refinery-specific modules.
2. Succession Management: This major HR initiative contributed towards organizational development
by identifying and developing talented people. Combined with the management development policy,
this initiative ensured leadership and management continuity throughout the company. The objective
was to fill vacancies on short notice internally, developing the capacity of individuals to assume
greater responsibility and boost motivation. By using in-house resources, ARL kept the staff
motivated and saved a substantial amount of money that otherwise would have been incurred to hire
op
suitable personnel.
3. Performance Awards: Various performance awards encouraged employees to attain their optimum
potential. The “Employee of the Quarter” ceremony awarded star performers in all departments with
shields and cash awards. Ceremonies were held on a quarterly basis to award employees who had set
high standards of safety consciousness in their work practices. Also, a “Safe Man-Hours” Trophy was
awarded quarterly to a department that had ensured a safe working environment by engaging all staff
tC

to exhibit safety consciousness. Besides this, ARL itself had been named as a “Grade A Company” by
the Human Resources Benchmarking Survey in light of the company’s superior HR practices.3
4. Promoting Learning Culture: In line with the core value of “Learning and Innovation,” the company
had established annual HR conferences to provide a learning platform for individuals inside as well as
outside of the company. After the resounding success of the first HR conference in 2009, it had
become an annual ritual. Eminent HR experts shared knowledge and discussed challenging business
environment with HR professionals across various organizations. In 2014, the majority of the
No

attendees — i.e., around 70 per cent of participants — had rated the HR conference as very good.
ARL also regularly held a series of conferences in the fields of health, safety and the environment and
plant maintenance and operations.

Despite efforts to fine-tune various functions of HR management, Saeed perceived that there was plenty
of room for improvement, specifically in setting objectives and measuring competencies in the
performance management system. He recalled what Tehseen Siddiqui, who was in charge of Staff Affairs,
had to say during the last appraisal review meeting. “Performance objectives are not designed properly, so
we need to do something about them to get the desired results. As far as competencies are concerned, how
Do

do you expect them to be measured accurately and give true results when people cannot even understand
them in a literal sense? Or perhaps the competency list is too lengthy to take an interest in,” she said.

3
Company documents, Annual Report 2013: Human Resource Development.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 4 9B15C015

t
THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AT ARL

os
As well as the various HR initiatives that focused primarily on personnel development, the most
important tool used by ARL to improve the performance of its HR capital was its rigorous appraisal
system. This process documented and evaluated employees’ job performance in two basic categories —
Performance Targets and Performance Dimensions. The performance appraisal was a regular process

rP
conducted each year in October/November when managers reviewed the previous year’s performance
with their subordinates and set new objectives for the upcoming year. Mid-term appraisal was conducted
in March/April where performance was only discussed without written documentation. Ongoing support
and coaching on accomplishing targets was encouraged throughout the year, followed by final evaluations
when an aggregate rating was given to the employee in accordance with the weightings of the categories
— Performance Targets at 40 per cent and Performance Dimensions at 60 per cent. Increment percentages
were decided according to the final aggregate rating, which ranged from 1 to 5. Completed appraisals

yo
were sent to the PAC for review and recommendation for annual increments and promotions. If any
disagreements occurred, the PAC consulted with the appropriate manager. In addition to PAC’s appraisal
review, a tabular form of the appraisals, consisting of some personal administrative details and details on
last promotion, increments and salary adjustments, was forwarded to the CEO for final review and
approval.

The appraisal management system at ARL was segregated into two periods — pre-1999 and post-1999.
op
Pre-1999

Before 1999, the appraisal system was subjective and contributed little to differentiating good from poor
performers as it did not have quantifiable objectives on which the performance of employees could be
evaluated. Rating an employee was at the sole discretion of the appraisers according to their own wishes;
tC

at times, they could not even justify their evaluations in appraisal meetings.

The annual appraisal process included five steps. The initial phase, Step 1, consisted of appraising the
elements of performance broadly based on five categories:

 What the employee accomplished: The extent to which the individual reached expected results, what
was achieved in the review period and reasons for success and/or failure.
No

 How the employee worked: The degree to which the employee applied sound methods in getting the
job done.
 How an employee’s personal qualities contributed to effectiveness on the job.
 The extent of the employee’s knowledge in the relevant functional and related fields.
 The employee’s general attitude towards the company and colleagues.

These five categories were further expanded into 32 subcategories (see Exhibit 2). Upon completion of
Step 1, the appraiser provided comments about the employee’s potential, development needs and career
progression. Once this section was completed, PAC analyzed the performance elements appraised in Step
Do

1 and identified training and development needs pinpointed in Step 2. Step 3 involved appraising the
overall performance of the employee based on a code of 1 to 5 where 1 indicated outstanding
performance and 5 specified inadequate performance. In Step 4, PAC assessed the employee’s capacity
for advancement in the current organization unit. Once all four steps were completed, the appraisal form
was sent to the CEO for final approval (Step 5), which formally finished the appraisal process.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 5 9B15C015

t
os
Although a formal appraisal process was followed with structured forms, issues such as objectivity,
differentiation and compensation were left unaddressed. There was a remote link between promotion and
performance. Considering the changing business dynamic and organizational goals of the company,
Khattak, then the HR manager, felt the need to incorporate a performance-oriented culture backed by an
appropriate appraisal system. Hence, major adjustments in the appraisal system were made.

rP
Post-1999

In late 1999, the company added performance objective setting in an attempt to create a performance-
oriented culture. Major additions and modifications were made to the employees’ performance evaluation.
The new system focused on objective setting, which wasn’t part of performance appraisals previously.

yo
Performance appraisal was divided into three parts — A, A-1 and B. Form A was known as the
Management Personnel Targets Appraisal, which provided the format for setting targets according to each
area of performance depending on the responsibilities of each individual. The targets were assigned a
weight and assessed according to predetermined verification criteria. Performance ratings were given on a
scale of 1 to 5 where 1 exhibited outstanding performance and 5 represented below average performance.
The specified weighting and assigned rating were multiplied to get the net result for each target. They
were then accumulated to calculate the total rating points. Further, the weighted average rating was
computed by dividing the total rating points by 100, which reflected a 30 per cent contribution in the final
op
rating of an employee.

The Management Personnel Performance Appraisal Record (Form A-1) consisted of basic demographics
and recorded an employee’s performance on issues such as attendance, counseling or warnings,
discipline, targets achieved and mid-term review. Form B, the Management Personnel Performance
Appraisal, outlined the 16 performance dimensions that were assigned different weights according to
tC

different management grade levels. After multiplying the performance ratings with the weights, the final
rating points were calculated for Form B. The prescribed weights of Form A and Form B were 30 per cent
and 70 per cent, respectively. Adding the two resulted in a Final Aggregate Rating of the employee. The
percentage of increment was decided based on the aggregate rating.

In continuous pursuit of performance improvement, in 2005 the appraisal forms were amended. The three
parts were reduced to two parts — Form A and Form B. Minor adjustments in the forms made the process
No

more effective. The weightings of target setting and competencies were changed. Target setting was
increased to 40 per cent and competencies were reduced to 60 per cent. Slight changes in the format were
incorporated, such as exclusion of the appraiser’s promotion recommendation section. Furthermore, the
overall increment bracket was changed. Details of increment percentages corresponding to final aggregate
ratings were outlined with the respective appraisal forms (see Exhibit 3).

THE CREATION OF A PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED CULTURE

Do

The process of performance management was viewed positively by almost all employees in the
organization. They were particularly satisfied with the inclusion of performance objectives, which added
role clarity and helped them identify their departmental and organizational targets. The overall process
was explained by a manager:

Our current CEO, Adil Khattak, has a more practical approach towards target setting. Things
have become easier now. First of all, corporate objectives are set which are finalized in June-July

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 6 9B15C015

t
os
every year. From these corporate targets, our departmental targets are set so we get to know what
contribution we are making in the core business. From our departmental targets, our section
targets are derived. For example, my department has two sections. From these section targets,
individual targets are set. These targets are 80 per cent linked to corporate targets.

Performance objective setting had a trickle-down effect. Employees were able to relate their departmental

rP
targets to corporate targets. Further, instead of different departments working in silos, performance
objective setting integrated activities to achieve corporate targets through combined strategic efforts. One
of the managers explained this association:

After 15 years, we are doing a very big project of $251 million. This is a make or break for us.
The project is about expansion. We are working on the quantity and quality of new units of
products so the target set “Assistance on EPC” [engineering, procurement and construction] is

yo
linked to a corporate target of Expansion. We provide technical support to the Project
Department.

Target setting provided direction to the employees and facilitated planning of their activities by
prioritizing and channeling their efforts. As an employee mentioned, “The major advantage of target
setting is that it helps me to keep track of my progress. When targets are explicitly stated in the form, it
helps me to meet my deadlines.”
op
Distinct from many other organizations, employees at ARL perceived appraisals as a development tool to
nurture them by addressing competency gaps and viewed objective setting as contributing to a
performance-oriented culture. Many claimed that the improved system better reflected their performance
when it came to target setting as it did not give appraisers the liberty to maneuver ratings. One manager
pointed out: “If a subordinate has achieved his target, the appraiser cannot give him a rating as per his
own choice, it has to be accurate.” Several other employees agreed on the effectiveness of target setting,
tC

as another manager explained: “This part of the appraisal is all about the visible effort you put in — it’s
either you have achieved your targets or you have not. There is no in-between. It is based on objective
judgments.”

However, others still had reservations and described target setting as a “complex task” and found it
difficult to set concrete targets each year. “Some poorly designed targets show that employees still need
to improve on objective setting to make the most out of the appraisal system,” said Siddiqui. She went
No

over the targets set in 2012 and 2013 (see Exhibit 4). While some employees had set very well-defined
targets, others failed to associate their targets with the SMART criteria of being specific, measurable,
attainable, realistic and timely. The “Naphtha Export” target discussed in Exhibit 4 was a SMART target
that had strict verification criteria. On the other hand, the “Crude Availability” target was too subjective:
if 50 per cent meant that the refinery was not working, then what did “no work done” represent? Crude
availability could not possibly be reduced to half of the daily capacity of 41,088 BPD by factors which
were under managerial and employee control. This confirmed that a few employees lacked clarity on
objective setting.
Do

Internal and external experts conducted training sessions on target setting. For example, Fakhir Shah, a
well-known external trainer, presented a session on corporate targets and target setting in 2007 titled
“Effective Target Setting: The Care and Growth Way.” From time to time, Saeed himself conducted
internal training sessions, which were around two to two and a half hours long, with multiple sessions so
as to include all appraisers. He had given a detailed presentation on “Target Setting,” which covered the
company’s philosophy of setting SMART targets and created a link between targets and company

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 7 9B15C015

t
os
performance. Sample targets were also shared with employees to illustrate how they should be set. Apart
from target setting, the focus of these training sessions was to explain defined competencies to the
appraisers. “The purpose of these trainings is to make appraisers understand the terminologies, but
making others understand is a difficult task,” said Saeed.

Debates about the usefulness of competency measurement were another point Saeed had to address.

rP
Employees had their reservations about this part of the form as it was entirely based on the perception and
subjective judgment of the appraiser. One manager commented, “Let’s say there are two individuals
managing one employee — the rating would be quite similar in the performance setting part but in the
behavioural part it would vary significantly between the two. If it varied significantly, this part should not
be given more weighting.” Another manager revealed that people did back calculations, which was quite
a standard practice. Form B gave managers the liberty to rate everyone equally. If good marks were given
to an employee in the performance objective setting part, the behavioural or, as he said, the “hidden

yo
appraisal” part would be balanced out automatically. That is, an individual who got more marks in
performance objective setting would get less in the behavioural part, so would fall in more or less the
same category. Hence, managers manipulated ratings in the behavioural part so as to arrive at a
preconceived final aggregate rating.

Managers had several motives when maneuvering performance ratings, especially leaning towards
leniency in an attempt to avoid conflict and maintain a healthy relationship with their subordinates. One
said, “If I know a person from 20 years, at the time of appraisal when I have to give him a specific rating,
op
I would definitely consider that his overall rating does not drop below 2.5.”

However, most employees agreed that the competency list was a reflection of ARL’s core values and that
individuals were able to achieve targets by exhibiting certain behaviours. It was perceived that a person
who achieved the targets would automatically do well in Form B but that the spectrum of competencies
was quite broad and different departments took them differently. For instance, safety consciousness for
tC

the Technical Department was very simple to assess, but what was safety consciousness for HR people?
One aspect might be to perceive it as confidentiality. Hence, there was a lot of discrepancy in perceptions
when it came to measuring behaviour.

Several employees wanted to understand how to be accurate in measuring competencies. They

complained about not being clear on how to use the rating scale. For instance, an employee from the
Operations Department expressed dissatisfaction that no guidance was given on filling Form B —
No

although people generally used a rating of 2 or 3 in the behavioural part, it was unclear when and how to
use a rating of 1 or 4.

Managers and employees also commented that although changes were made from 2000 to 2006, the
current system was not distinguishing a good performer from a poor performer or a good or outstanding
performer from an average one. According to one manager, everyone took an interest in the process;
someone who put in effort to do work actually wanted to see the assessment, but over the years, people
did not value their assessments as much as they had in the past. One important reason for this was the
remote link between rewards and performance. The marginal difference in the increment rate of various
Do

categories of performers had lowered employees’ motivation and had created an aura of frustration. The
manager said, “Reward and recognition are no longer linked to our appraisal system. The management
relies on a very simple band. The band itself has lowered over the years. For example, our minimum rate
of increment (in practice) is 5 per cent and the maximum goes up to 8 to 8.5 per cent where the average
increment is around 7 to 7.5 per cent. So nobody is interested to see what increment they are getting.
However, employees whose promotions are due are interested in their increments level as 15 per cent

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 8 9B15C015

t
os
increment is levied on promotions.” Moreover, according to the HR Department, there was a salary
adjustment for anomalies at the lower end for less than 10 per cent of cases.

Several other employees had a somewhat similar view about the level of increments given as a result of
performance appraisal. One said, “Overall, people are frustrated because of low increments. The
increments should be given according to the rate of inflation. At this point in time, everybody is getting

rP
an increment around 7 to 8 per cent and there is no point in having a PMS when everyone gets the same
rate of increment.” Another employee added, “I think increments should be according to performance.
Everyone should not get equal ratings and equal increments.”

In addition to these concerns regarding the effectiveness of performance management, there were
disparate opinions about the weightings of Form A and Form B. Although a majority of employees were
satisfied with the current weightings of target setting and competencies, a few suggested increasing the

yo
weighting of target setting so as to move towards a stronger performance culture. According to one
manager, 70 per cent weighting should be assigned to performance objective setting as it reflected the
direct contribution of the individual — the person’s actual performance — and 30 per cent of the
weighting should be allotted to the behavioural part as an individual’s behaviour did not vary significantly
and the measurement of behaviour was so subjective.

However, other employees commented that considering the slow-moving nature of the process industry,
increasing the weighting of the performance objective might result in setting regular “routine work” as
op
targets.

Different departments also viewed the current weightings differently. What was beneficial for one
department was not for others. One of the managers explained: “Form A is all about the effort you make
on ground. Form B is broader. You are grading someone on his actions. You see, Form A is all paper
work. Some departments have targets, like you have to sell 2,500 tons of diesels. In our case, the targets
tC

are a little different. Form B, which is about behaviours, I think its weighting should be increased
compared to Form A.”

If the process was viewed through the lens of personnel, changes in increment rates was what needed
immediate attention compared to altering the weightings of the forms. Although employees were satisfied
with the current weighting, it was rewards and recognition that needed to be upgraded. “I think even 40
per cent is more for performance objectives; still, it is a good ratio of 60 to 40. However, the reward and
No

recognition part needs major improvement,” stated a manager.

One employee commented that the focus should be on clarity, not the weightings:

In my view, the weighting should not be debated, it is clarity which needs to be debated. We
cannot say weighting should be changed to, say, 80:20 because then everybody would work on
objectives and they wouldn’t care about behaviour. Ultimately, all these competencies back up
your targets. If we want a performance-oriented culture, clarity should be brought regarding both
target setting and competencies, rather than changing the weightings. However, in targets there is
Do

little chance to maneuver.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 9 9B15C015

t
WHAT NEXT?

os
Considering the views of employees from various departments, Saeed needed to make decisions that
could further improve the role of the current PMS in establishing a performance-oriented culture.

Did the weightings of the forms need to be changed? Would additional training sessions help to make

rP
matters clearer in the minds of appraisers? Was the weighting of 40 per cent for target setting suitable for
a company operating in a slow-moving process industry as opposed to fast-moving consumer goods? If he
did continue with the current weighting of 60 per cent for competencies, would defining competencies
more clearly benefit the company? Changes in the increment levels might draw employees’ attention
towards the appraisal process, but was the scoring of both Form A and Form B a fair reflection of
performance? Saeed had many questions and he started to reflect on the answers. He needed to prepare a
document and an action plan for the management committee and the PAC based on the minutes of the

yo
meeting.
op
tC
No
Do

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 10 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 1: FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

os
rP
yo
op
tC
No

Source: ARL Annual Report 2013.

Do

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 11 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 2: PRE-1999 APPRAISAL FORM

os
APPRAISAL CODE
STEP 1- APPRAISE THE ELEMENTS OF PERFORMANCE
1. Outstanding or exceptional performance (usually less
Appraise those factors important to effective performance in the than 10% of the total)
specific responsibilities of this position, using the appraisal code. 2. Performance which is definitely better than normally
expected, producing results which exceed the

rP
Disregard factors not applicable. In the spaces provided, list and
appraise other factors which are important to this position and/or requirements of the position (usually no more than 25%
how effectively the employee performs his specific of the group)
responsibilities 3. Performance which consistently meets the
requirements of the position (typical of a majority of
personnel)
4. Performance which on the basis of comparative
effectiveness requires certain improvement in one or
more basic aspects of the work
5. Inadequate performance

yo
A. WHAT HE ACCOMPLISHES — Consider the RESULTS of the employee’s work and that of his subordinates and
comment upon the extent the individual accomplished expected results during the review period along with the
review of what has been achieved and reasons for success or failure in the spaces provided against comments.

 Quality of Work — Caliber of work produced or  Profit Objectives — Effectiveness in meeting profit
accomplished compared with accepted standards of objectives and in generating and implementing money
performance making ideas

 Quantity of Work — Volume of acceptable work  Developing People — Effectiveness in selecting and
compared with what may reasonably be expected appraising personnel, setting high standards of
performance and motivating them to grow in their capacity
op
 Cost of Objective — Effectiveness in meeting cost to handle increasingly difficult work
objectives and in operation at lower cost, with minimum
manpower, with most efficient methods  Performance Objective — Ability to meet performance
objectives set by the Supervisors to carry out position
responsibilities effectively

Comments: *
tC

B. HOW HE WORKS — Consider the degree to which the employee applies sound METHODS in getting his job done.
 Planning — Effectiveness in anticipating needs,  Working with Others — Effectiveness of relationships with
forecasting conditions, setting goals and standards, subordinates, associates and superiors
planning and scheduling work and measuring results
 Communicating — Effectiveness in keeping subordinates,
 Organizing — Effectiveness in dividing the total work associates and supervisors adequately informed
to be done into clear-cut and manageable jobs and
integrating all components into a harmonious,  Analysis — Effectiveness in thinking through a problem; in
smoothly working whole recognizing, securing and evaluating relevant facts; and in
No

reaching a conclusion
 Delegating — Effectiveness in delegating work and
assigning responsibility to subordinates and in  Methods — How does the individual go about getting the job
establishing appropriate controls done? How does he plan, delegate, follow through,
communicate, work with people at various levels, etc.?

Comments: *

C. WHAT HE IS — Consider the degree to which the employee’s PERSONAL QUALITIES contribute to his
effectiveness.
 Leadership — Effectiveness in developing in others  Drive — Basic urge and energy to get things done?
Do

the willingness and desire to work towards a  Dependability — Reliability in assuming and carrying out the
common objective commitments and obligations of his position
 Judgment — Soundness of conclusions, decisions &  Integrity & Honesty — Degree of honesty and integrity
demonstrated in performing the job.
actions
 Initiative — Ability to take actions without being told

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 12 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED)

os
Comments: *

D. WHAT HE KNOWS — Consider the employee’s KNOWLEDGE in his functional and related fields and his
understanding of environmental matters necessary to effective performance.

rP
 Assigned Work — Knowledge of methods,  Company Philosophy and objectives — Knowledge of the
techniques and skills in his functional field which are company and its objectives, organizing structure and
necessary to performance of his responsibilities management philosophy

 Related Work — Knowledge of related functions, the  Development in Profession and Field — Acquaintance with
understanding of which has an influence on assigned ideas, trends, techniques and discoveries ( both inside and
work outside the company ) pertaining to his work

 Knowledge of Industry practices  Creative abilities — Abilities to introduce/accept change

yo
 Basic administrative skills

Comments: *

E. WHAT HE FEELS — Consider his general ATTITUDE towards the Company and his Colleagues as reflected in his
work which contributes to effective performance
 Adaptability to Company’s Culture — Ability to adopt  Punctuality — Regularity in attending work and other
local culture and create a sense of belonging assignments
op
 Socializing — Willingness and desire to mix socially with  Dedication — Conscientious for accomplishment of job
Colleagues and other people concerning work even sometimes beyond the call of duty

 Relationship with CBA1 — Helpfulness in creating  Safety & Security — Conscientious for fire prevention,
conducive and good working atmosphere with CBA safety and security of the Company’s employees and
property
Other Factors: *
Comments: *
tC

Performance Rating Table

Increment Scale for Final

Rating
Rating Abbreviation Per cent Description Aggregated
Points
(%) Rating
The employee who excels in all aspects of
Outstanding OS 12.5 1 0.50 to 1.49 = 1
their work
No

The employee who excels in most aspects of

Good G 10 2 1.50 to 2.49 = 2
their work
The employee who is qualified, competent
Above Average AA 7.5 3 2.50 to 3.49 = 3
and produces quality
The employee who meets average standards
as to most job requirements but is deficient
Average A 5 4 3.50 to 4.49 = 4
in the execution of a particular part of the job

The employee whose work is unsatisfactory.

They may be terminated if despite
Below Average BA 2.5 5 reasonable opportunity being given have not 4.50 to 5.00 = 5
attained satisfactory work standards
Do

1
CBA stands for collective bargaining agent and refers to the employee trade union.
Source: Company documents: Appraisal Form 1998.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 13 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 3: APPRAISAL FORMS 2014

os
ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED
MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL TARGETS APPRAISAL
FORM A
(To be filled by the Immediate Controlling Officer and shown to appraisee when completed)

APPRAISAL PERIOD: From: To:

rP
Name Service No
Job Title
Department/Section

INSTRUCTIONS:
In case the employee has not achieved the agreed targets or prescribed standards, due to some reason
beyond his control, state the reason, which should not affect his overall performance evaluation. In that case

yo
the rating of last year shall be treated as the final rating. Incompetence or non-cooperation of subordinates
and colleagues, increased rate of absenteeism or mere rush of work should not be treated as reasons beyond
control.

ASSESSMENT/ RATING POINTS

Outstanding 1 Good 2
Above Average 3 Average 4
Below Average 5
op
LIST OF TARGETS
Area of Yearly Targets Weighting (W Targets Rating (R) Net
Verification Criteria
Ser. Performance %) Achieved Result
No. (5) MID FINAL (W%xR)
(4)
(1) (2) (3) (6) (7)
1
tC

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
No

WEIGHTED AVERAGE ON ACHIEVEMENT OF TARGETS Total Rating Points:

Weighted Average Rating:
(Total Rating Points/100)

Training needs

Sr. # Competency Cluster Tra Code Course

Do

1 1
2 2
3 3

(Section Incharge/Head) (Department Manager) (Appraisee)

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 14 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 3: (CONTINUED)

os
ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED
MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
FORM B
(To be filled by in by Immediate Controlling Officer and shown to the appraisee when completed)
APPRAISAL PERIOD: From: To:

rP
PERSONAL DETAILS
Name Service no
Job title Grade
Section Date of birth
Department Reports to
Years of experience (outside) Basic pay
Date of joining on contract Position held during appraisal period
Date of joining as regular

yo
Date coming to grade Qualification
Brief job description

PERFORMANCE RATING TABLE

Increment Scale for Final
Rating
Rating Percentage Description Aggregated
Positions
(%) Rating
The employee who excels in all aspects of
op
Outstanding 9-10 O 0.50 to 1.49 = 1
their work
The employee who excels in most aspects
Good 8-8.5 G 1.50 to 2.49 = 2
of their work
Above The employee who is qualified, competent
7-7.5 AA 2.50 to 3.49 = 3
Average and produce quality
The employee who meets average
Average 5 A 3.50 to 4.49 = 4
standard as to most jobs
tC

The employee whose work is

Below Average 2.5 BA 4.50 to 5.00 = 5
unsatisfactory. They may be terminated
INSTRUCTIONS – HOW TO FILL THIS FORM

 Performance dimensions have different weighting for different grades, which are represented in columns
“weighting.”
 An appraisee will be rated on each dimensions on a scale, having five degrees.
 Rating given will be put in columns “Performance Ratings” (a).
 To get the final rating points, multiply performance dimensions “Weighting” with “Performance Rating” given.
No

 Add all “Final Rating Points” to get the “Final Aggregated Rating” and divide by 100.
 Check the “Final Aggregated Rating Points” at the Scale given in Performance Rating Table (Page 3) to get the
Final Rating.
 Put the Final Rating in requisite box.
Weighting Rating
Ser
Performance Dimension Mgt. grade Levels Performance
Final Rating
.No
1&2 3&4 >5(1) (a) (axWeighting)
Annua Annua
Mid Mid
l l
1 JOB KNOWLEDGE
Do

Process knowledge of methods, techniques and skills and

conversant with all phases of assigned job and related
matters.
2 EFFICIENCY ORIENTATION
Looks for the best use of resources; actively seeks to
improve current methods, systems, processes and structures;
demonstrates deep concern and is judicious with company’s
funds, properties and interests; makes productive use of time
to meet targeted standard levels.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 15 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED)

os
3 PLANNING & ORGANIZING
Anticipates needs, forecasts conditions, plans, organizes and
monitors results till completion of tasks assigned.
4 DECISION MAKING
Takes rational, sound and timely decisions based on relevant

rP
information and facts and accepts accountability.
5 DEPENDABILITY
Carries out commitments and obligations of the position
efficiently, expeditiously and honestly; takes quick, effective
and reliable decisions after considering available options and
their implications.
6 DEVELOPING PEOPLE
Identifies and motivates others to improve their capabilities
and standard of performance through training, counseling

yo
and job rotation process.
7 SAFETY CONSCIOUSNESS
Demonstrates concern for safety and complies with safety
standards and requirements while performing duty.
8 COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Ability to listen carefully and to present facts and ideas
verbally and in written form in clear, effective and convincing
manner invoking positive responses.
9 LEADERSHIP
op
Develops in subordinates the will and desire to work towards
a common objective, assigns work to them and keeps track of
the progress and corrects deviations to achieve the desired
goals.
10 INITIATIVE
Does things before being asked to or forced by events and
acts at the right time.
11 PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS
tC

Logically breaking problems down into their essential

elements, carrying out diagnosis and developing solutions.
12 TEAM SPIRIT
Exhibits team spirit in the performance of his duties to
achieve overall common objectives.
13 INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
Building persuasive arguments based on logic/merits without
hurting feelings of others.
14 ADAPTABILITY/ OPENNESS TO CHANGE
No

Ability to alter behaviour and opinions in the light of new

information and new technology and responds constructively
to changing situations.
15 INNOVATION
Generates original and imaginative new ideas and suggests
solutions to problems to achieve improvement in work
operations.
16 TENACITY
Remains steadfast and maintains stability of performance
under pressure and stressful conditions and pursues tasks
Do

until completed.

AGGREGATED RATING POINTS

FINAL RATING

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 16 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED)

os
Final Rating = Aggregated Rating Points Any values & ethics issues during the year Yes No
100
SUMMARY OF RATING Annual
Rating on Performance targets (Form – A) =
Rating on Performance dimensions (Form – B) =

rP
Final Rating  40% (Form A) + 60% (Form B) =
Consensus of Average Rating Value =
(Summation of total rating values divided by number of raters if more than one person has rated the
employee)

PERFORMANCE REVIEW TO BE FILLED BY THE APPRAISER

DEVELOPMENT NEEDS/PLANS
List the individual’s greatest strengths as determined on the basis of overall performance assessment (This will

yo
provide an important indication of the direction in which development should be planned).

List the areas in which the appraisee needs improvement and development. Indicate briefly the step or plans for
improvement such as training, job rotation, counseling, special assignments, etc.

Has the Appraisee expressed any preference about his career pattern? If so, please state.
op
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING (To be Tick Marked)

OUTSTANDING –1 ABOVE AVERAGE – 3

GOOD – 2

AVERAGE – 4
tC

BELOW AVERAGE – 5

REVIEWED BY APPRAISER

Signature: Signature:
Name of Appraiser: Name of Appraiser:
Designation: Designation:
Date: Date:
No

APPRAISEE’S VIEWS, IF ANY

Signature:
Name:

UPTO THIS POINT APPRAISAL MAY BE SHOWN TO THE APPRAISEE

RECOMMMENDATION

Yes No
Do

1. Is the individual promotable to the next grade or position ahead?

(To be Tick Marked) Ready Now 1 to 3 years 4 to 5 years

2. Does he appear to have the potential to advance beyond the next position? (To be Ticked Marked)
Yes Can’t Judge Now No

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 17 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 3 (CONTINUED)

os
3. If practicable, name the position to which it is believed he has potential to advance.

4. If the answer is no, state the reason such as age, non-availability of position in the authorized
strength, lack of basic qualification, resistance to accept responsibilities, unwillingness to change

rP
work location, etc.?

5. Remarks:

REVIEWED BY DEPARTMENTAL MANAGER

yo
Signature:
Name:
Designation:
Date:

FINAL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT BY APPRAISAL COMMITTEE

op
FINAL ASSESSMENT (To be Ticked Marked)
OUTSTANDING -1 ABOVE AVERAGE – 3
GOOD – 2

AVERAGE – 4 BELOW AVERAGE – 5

COMMENTS
tC

CHAIRMAN
No

MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER

FINAL DECISION
Do

Date: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Source: Company documents: Appraisal Forms 2014.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860
 Page 18 9B15C015

t
EXHIBIT 4: SAMPLE TARGETS

os
SMART Targets
Ser. Area of Yearly Targets Weighting Verification Criteria Targets Rating Net
No. performance (%) Achieved Result
Mid Final (W%xR)

rP
1 Naphtha Manage 15 Less than 0.9 = 100%
Export Naphtha Achieved - 1
transportation Equal to 0.9 = 75%
and storage Achieved - 2
losses less than Equal to 0.9-1.0 = 50%
0.9 Achieved - 3
Equal to 1.01-1.10 =
25% Achieved – 4
Not Achieved - 5

yo
2 Zero To ensure zero 10 Zero shutdown = 100%
Unplanned unplanned 01 shutdown = 75%
Shutdown shutdown due to 02 shutdown = 50%
any breakdown 03 shutdown = 25%
Not achieved = Nil

3 CBA1 To execute and 15 By April 15, 2012 – 1

Agreement finalize By May 15, 2012 – 2
agreement with By June 15, 2012 – 3
op
CBA within the Beyond June 15, 2012 –
mandate given 4
by the board of
directors

Subjective Targets
Ser. Area of Yearly Targets Weighting Verification Criteria Targets Rating Net
tC

No. performance (%) Achieved Result

Mid Final (W%xR)

1 Crude Ensure 5 100% Achieved -1

Availability availability of 75% Achieved - 2
41,088 BPD 50% Achieved - 3
crude subject to 25% Achieved - 4
refinery Not Achieved - 5
economics
No

2 Project To facilitate the 20 100% facilitation - 1

Preflash project team and 90% facilitation - 2
isomerization contractor 80% facilitation - 3
/ & DHDs2 70% facilitation - 4

3 Training & Implementation 15 100% effectiveness – 1

Development of Technical 75% effectiveness – 2
Training 50% effectiveness – 3
Manuals at ARL 25% effectiveness – 4
Less than 25%
effectiveness – 5
Do

1
CBA = collective bargaining agent
2
DHDs = diesel hydro desulphurization units
Source: Information extracted from completed Appraisal Forms, 2013.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by PANKHURI SHARMA, Army Institute of Management until Jul 2025. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
[email protected] or 617.783.7860