Esicizo Technologies manufactures a wide range of hydraulic products. It has a workforce of 2,700, which includes 297 supervisors and executives. A performance appraisal for these supervisors and executives is conducted by their respective superiors yearly. The company has a dual rating. Performance appraisal is based on the following factors: goals, skills, involvement in CSR, team-building skills, dependability on subordinates, sense of responsibility, and potential to take higher positions. All these factors are given equal weightage.
In 2011–2012, some of these supervisors and executives were not given any increments, because they could not meet a few of the performance appraisal standards such as dependability on subordinates and CSR. These supervisors reported their complaints about not getting the increment and claimed that the performance appraisal was faulty. These supervisors were against CSR activities and dependability on subordinates as part of the performance cycle. These factors should not be considered to be parameters for increments and timely promotions. They had asked for the increment for that year and believed that the system should be more focused in terms of delivering quality at the right time.

Questions
1. As an HR manager, how will you decide on the performance appraisal scheme? Would you make changes to the current scheme? If so, what would be the changes?
2. Should these supervisors and executives be given an appraisal?
3. Justify your thoughts on the inclusion of CSR activities and dependability on subordinates as a part of performance appraisal.