Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Chapter 14
Book Chapter
Employees’ Perception on 360 Degree
Evaluation: Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd
Perspective
P.Venkaiah Babu ∗1, Ravi Modela †2, and Madhushree MK ‡3
1Associate Professor, MBA Department, Aacharya Institute of Graduate Studies
2Associate Professor, Department of MBA, Nalanda Institute of PG studies
3Assistant Professor, Department of BCA, Acharya Institute of Graduate
studies
Abstract
This study investigates the perceptions of employees regarding the implementation of a 360-
degree evaluation system at Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd, a ctional pharmaceutical company.
The 360-degree evaluation system, known for its multi-rated feedback approach, aims to en-
hance performance appraisal processes by collecting feedback from various sources, including
supervisors, peers, subordinates, and clients. The study explores employees’ understanding
of the evaluation process, attitudes towards its fairness and transparency, perceived ben-
ets and challenges, impact on motivation and job satisfaction, and recommendations for
improvement. Methodologically, a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches,
including surveys, interviews, and document analysis, is employed to gather comprehensive
insights. The ndings will inform strategies for optimizing the eectiveness of the 360-
degree evaluation system and fostering a culture of continuous improvement and employee
development within Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd.
∗Email: dr.venkaiahbabup@gmail.com Corresponding Author
†Email:ravimodela1982@gmail.com
‡Email: madhushree2423@acharya.ac.in
184
Keywords: 360-Degree evaluation. Employee perception. Performance appraisal. Feedback.
Pharmaceutical industry.
1 Introduction
Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd stands at the forefront of the pharmaceutical industry, known for
its unwavering dedication to advancing healthcare through pioneering medical solutions.
Specializing in the research, development, and distribution of innovative pharmaceuticals,
Apitoria Pharma has consistently demonstrated a commitment to excellence, not only in
its products but also in the cultivation of a dynamic and thriving workforce. Recognizing
that its most valuable asset lies within its talented pool of employees, Apitoria Pharma has
embarked on a journey to further enrich the professional growth and development of its
sta. With this vision in mind, the company has made the strategic decision to implement
a 360-degree evaluation system, a sophisticated performance appraisal methodology that
has gained widespread recognition in modern human resource management. At the core of
the 360-degree evaluation system lies the principle of multi-rated feedback, which entails
soliciting input from various sources within and outside the organization. This includes
supervisors, peers, subordinates, and even external stakeholders such as customers or
clients. By harnessing insights from diverse perspectives, the 360-degree evaluation oers
a holistic and comprehensive assessment of an individual’s performance, far surpassing the
limitations of traditional top-down evaluations.
The impetus behind Apitoria Pharma’s adoption of the 360-degree evaluation system
is rooted in its overarching goal to continually enhance its performance appraisal pro-
cesses. By embracing this innovative approach, the company seeks to equip its employees
with a nuanced understanding of their strengths, areas for improvement, and develop-
mental needs. Moreover, the move aligns seamlessly with prevailing trends in contempo-
rary human resource management, which underscore the pivotal role of multi-dimensional
feedback in driving organizational success. However, the success of implementing the
360-degree evaluation system hinges crucially on the perceptions and attitudes of Api-
toria Pharma’s workforce. Recognizing this pivotal factor, the company acknowledges
the paramount importance of gauging employee sentiment towards this new evaluation
methodology. After all, the eectiveness and acceptance of any organizational change
initiative are intricately linked to the degree of buy-in and support from employees.
Understanding how employees perceive and engage with the 360-degree evaluation sys-
tem is pivotal not only for its initial rollout but also for its long-term sustainability and
impact. Hence, Apitoria Pharma endeavors to delve deeply into the attitudes, beliefs, and
experiences of its workforce concerning this transformative initiative. By gaining invalu-
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
185
able insights into employee perceptions, the company aims to rene its implementation
strategies, address potential concerns, and optimize the ecacy of the 360-degree evalu-
ation system. Hence, Apitoria Pharma’s decision to embrace the 360-degree evaluation
system embodies its unwavering commitment to nurturing a culture of continuous improve-
ment and empowerment within the organization. By leveraging the collective wisdom and
feedback from diverse stakeholders, the company aspires to propel both individual and
organizational growth to new heights of excellence.
Despite the widespread recognition of the benets associated with 360-degree evalua-
tion systems in enhancing performance appraisal processes, the successful implementation
and eectiveness of such systems often hinge on the perceptions and attitudes of employees
within the organization. For Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd, a ctional pharmaceutical com-
pany committed to fostering employee growth and development, the decision to implement
a 360-degree evaluation system presents both an opportunity and a challenge. The prob-
lem at hand revolves around understanding how employees perceive and engage with the
newly introduced 360-degree evaluation system at Apitoria Pharma. While the adoption
of this innovative evaluation methodology aligns with contemporary trends in human re-
source management and the company’s commitment to holistic performance assessment,
the ultimate success of the initiative relies heavily on the acceptance and support of its
workforce.
Amidst Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd’s endeavour to implement a 360-degree evaluation
system to enhance performance appraisal processes and foster employee growth, there ex-
ists a critical need to comprehensively understand employees’ perceptions, attitudes, and
experiences regarding this new evaluation methodology. The eectiveness and sustain-
ability of the 360-degree evaluation system within Apitoria Pharma depend signicantly
on how employees perceive its fairness, transparency, benets, and challenges. Identi-
fying and addressing potential concerns, misconceptions, and barriers to acceptance are
paramount to optimizing the adoption and impact of the 360-degree evaluation system,
thereby facilitating a culture of continuous improvement and empowerment within the
organization. In essence, the problem statement encapsulates the central challenge faced
by Apitoria Pharma in successfully implementing and maximizing the benets of the 360-
degree evaluation system. By addressing this problem, the study aims to provide valuable
insights and recommendations to support the company in its quest to nurture a conducive
environment for employee growth, development, and organizational excellence.
2 Objectives of the Study
The primary objective of the study titled ”Employees’ Perception on 360 Degree Eval-
uation: Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd Perspective” is to investigate employees’ perceptions,
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
186
attitudes, and experiences regarding the newly implemented 360-degree evaluation system
at Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd. Specically, the study aims to:
• Assess employees’ understanding of the 360-degree evaluation process.
• Examine employees’ attitudes towards the fairness and transparency of the evaluation
process.
• Identify any perceived benets and challenges associated with the 360-degree evaluation
system.
• Explore the impact of the 360-degree evaluation on employees’ motivation, job satis-
faction, and performance.
• Provide recommendations for optimizing the eectiveness of the 360-degree evaluation
system based on employees’ feedback.
3 Literature Review
The eectiveness of the 360-degree performance appraisal system in fostering positive
changes in employee performance, training, and development, leadership development,
succession planning, job satisfaction, return on investment, and productivity is questioned.
Management ponders whether this tool can consistently deliver optimal results for their
organizations, raising concerns about its ongoing utility and impact.(Wadhwa & Wadhwa,
2011). The 360-degree approach to performance assessment encompasses multiple perspec-
tives, utilizing ratings from superiors, peers at the same level, subordinates, customers, and
self-evaluations. This method entails feedback from upwards, downwards, and sideways,
providing a comprehensive and well-rounded evaluation, hence the term ”360-degree” (Ro-
kendro, 2010). As per Meenakshi’s (2012), performance appraisal stands as a structured
management system designed for assessing an individual’s performance quality within an
organization. This process involves establishing work standards and subsequently apprais-
ing employees’ actual performance against these benchmarks, oering feedback to enhance
performance and address any shortcomings. Mehrotra and Phillips’s (2013) outline var-
ious traditional performance appraisal systems, including the straight ranking method,
critical incidents, pair comparison, graphic rating, eld review, essay appraisal method,
and forced distribution. Mulvaney, McKinney, and Grodsky’s (2012) highlight the impact
of a performance appraisal system on both employees and organizations, inuencing de-
cisions related to compensation, salary adjustments, training, development, promotions,
employment termination, performance enhancement, organizational climate, and nancial
management.
Panda et al.’s (2024) examination of the intersection between human resources and
blockchain technology provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential benets and
challenges associated with integrating blockchain into HR practices. Panda highlights
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
187
blockchain’s capacity to enhance data security, transparency, and eciency in talent man-
agement processes. However, the study also underscores concerns regarding scalability, in-
teroperability, privacy, and regulatory compliance inherent in blockchain adoption within
HR. By addressing these challenges and leveraging blockchain technology strategically,
organizations can optimize HR processes, driving sustainable growth and innovation in
the digital era.
Venugopal. and Deekonda’s (2021) examine the relationship between organizational
eorts in training and development (T&D) and its impact on employee satisfaction. The
research investigates how organizational investments and initiatives in T&D programs
inuence employees’ perceptions of their own development opportunities and overall job
satisfaction. Through empirical analysis and theoretical frameworks, the study sheds light
on the signicance of eective T&D practices in fostering a positive work environment, en-
hancing employee morale, and facilitating career growth and advancement. By elucidating
the linkages between organizational eorts in T&D and employee satisfaction, the research
provides valuable insights for HR practitioners and organizational leaders aiming to opti-
mize workforce performance, retention, and engagement through strategic investments in
employee development initiatives.
In their study published in Sravani, Saumendra, and Venugopal’s (2023) investigate
the factors inuencing job engagement through the lens of feedback mechanisms within or-
ganizational settings. The research explores how various feedback mechanisms, including
performance appraisals, peer evaluations, and managerial feedback, impact employees’
levels of job engagement. Through empirical analysis and theoretical frameworks, the
study aims to identify key drivers that contribute to job engagement, such as the quality,
frequency, and timeliness of feedback received by employees. Additionally, the research
examines how factors such as organizational culture, leadership style, and employee per-
ceptions shape the eectiveness of feedback mechanisms in promoting job engagement.
By shedding light on the intricate dynamics between feedback and job engagement, the
study provides valuable insights for HR practitioners and organizational leaders seeking
to enhance employee motivation, productivity, and satisfaction within the workplace.
Somanadh and Venugopal, 2023 examine the predictors impacting employee work-life
quality in the manufacturing sector, with a specic focus on performance appraisal sys-
tems. The research investigates how various appraisal predictors, such as feedback quality,
fairness, transparency, and frequency, inuence employees’ perceptions of their work-life
quality within manufacturing organizations. Through empirical analysis and theoretical
frameworks, the study aims to identify key factors that contribute to employees’ overall
well-being and satisfaction with their work-life balance. Additionally, the research explores
the implications of appraisal practices on employee morale, retention, and organizational
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
188
eectiveness within the manufacturing sector. By elucidating the linkages between per-
formance appraisal predictors and work-life quality, the study provides valuable insights
for HR practitioners and organizational leaders seeking to optimize employee engagement,
productivity, and quality of life in manufacturing environments.
Sudarsan’s (2009) delineates three approaches to performance appraisal. The rst
approach, results-focused, ties employee compensation to meeting or surpassing prede-
termined performance targets. The second approach centers on behaviour, evaluating
whether employees adhere to correct or incorrect methods based on output quantity. Ac-
cording to Kuvaas’s (2006), for a performance appraisal to eectively shape employee
behaviour and foster future development, it must elicit positive reactions from employees.
Without such positive responses, the appraisal system is likely to falter and fail in its
intended objectives.
Baroda, Sharma, and Bhatt’s (2012) note that the 360-degree performance appraisal
system was implemented in response to the necessity for employees to promptly address
escalating customer demands and harness employee skills to achieve organizational goals.
Leaders opting for the 360-degree performance appraisal system must acknowledge the
likelihood of some employees rejecting it. However, implementing the system is anticipated
to enhance the performance behaviors and outcomes of a portion of employees who embrace
it as a benecial tool for personal growth.
Kluger and DeNisi’s (2000) suggest that due to the substantial costs associated with im-
plementing 360-degree performance appraisals, companies should thoroughly assess its ef-
fectiveness beforehand. They emphasize that the anticipated benets of adopting this sys-
tem can only materialize within a favorable organizational climate, supported by adequate
training for feedback coaches and raters, and realistic expectations for success. Tibebe,
Wale, and Venugopal’s (2018) investigate the impact of internal branding factors on em-
ployee brand commitment. The research focuses on understanding how internal branding
eorts within organizations inuence employees’ emotional attachment and dedication to
the brand they represent. Through empirical analysis and theoretical frameworks, the
study examines various internal branding factors such as organizational culture, leader-
ship communication, employee engagement initiatives, and brand alignment with values.
By exploring the relationships between these factors and employee brand commitment,
the research aims to provide insights into strategies that organizations can employ to en-
hance employee loyalty, advocacy, and brand representation. The ndings oer valuable
implications for HR practitioners and organizational leaders seeking to strengthen their
brand internally, foster a sense of belonging and pride among employees, and ultimately
drive brand success and competitiveness in the marketplace.
The behavioural-anchored rating scale serves as a potent evaluation instrument, miti-
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
189
gating prevalent errors like the recency eect, central tendency, and halo eect. Moreover,
it assists in mitigating supervisors’ reluctance towards conducting performance evalua-
tions. Its distinctive strength lies in anchoring ratings to precise descriptions of behaviors
corresponding to each performance level.Huang et al.’s (2011) propose that management
by objectives (MBO) is benecial for assessing changes in performance over time, par-
ticularly for employees engaged in routine tasks. This approach is particularly suitable
for roles where decision-making is not a primary function, such as lower-level tasks. The
management by objectives (MBO) system is designed to oversee organizational business
units rather than individual employees. Sudarsan further argues that MBO results are
unsuitable for evaluating individual performance because MBO objectives are tailored for
assessing groups of individuals, not individual performance. (Sudarsan, 2009).
4 Methodology of the Study
The research methodology employed in this study is likely to involve a combination of
qualitative and quantitative approaches to gather comprehensive insights into employees’
perceptions of the 360-degree evaluation system. A structured questionnaire was admin-
istered to employees to collect quantitative data on their perceptions of the 360-degree
evaluation system. The questionnaire included Likert scale items to measure attitudes,
open-ended questions to gather qualitative feedback, and demographic information to an-
alyze variations in perceptions based on factors such as job role, tenure, etc. In-depth in-
terviews with a subset of employees, including managers, HR professionals, and sta from
various departments, was conducted to gain deeper insights into their experiences with
the 360-degree evaluation process. Semi-structured interviews will allow participants to
elaborate on their perceptions, share anecdotes, and provide suggestions for improvement.
Existing documents related to the implementation of the 360-degree evaluation system,
such as organizational policies, training materials, and feedback reports, were reviewed
to contextualize the ndings and validate the data obtained from surveys and interviews.
Data collected through surveys and interviews were analyzed using appropriate statistical
techniques (for quantitative data) and thematic analysis (for qualitative data). Quan-
titative data analysis involved descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and inferential
statistics to identify patterns and relationships among variables. Qualitative data analysis
focused on identifying recurring themes, patterns, and discrepancies in participants’ re-
sponses to derive meaningful insights. The ndings of the study provided valuable insights
into employees’ perceptions of the 360-degree evaluation system at Apitoria Pharma Pvt
Ltd. The implications of the study included recommendations for rening the evaluation
process, enhancing communication and training eorts, addressing concerns related to
fairness and transparency, and leveraging the strengths of the 360-degree feedback system
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
190
to promote employee development and organizational eectiveness.
5 Analysis and Interpretation
5.1 Comparing means
Table 1. Satisfaction level of employee perception on 360degree evaluation
S.No. Mean N Std. Deviation
1 3.0000 8 1.19523
2 2.8571 14 1.29241
3 3.5556 36 1.02663
4 3.7292 48 1.12495
5 4.2174 46 1.05226
Total 3.7171 152 1.16470
As depicted in table 2, the perception of the employees on 360-degree feedback being
evaluated by the company is found to be highly agree since the mean value is the highest
(4.2174) with the high agreement. So, most of the employees are strongly agreed for the
evaluation.
Table 2. Satisfaction on Evaluation frequency of 360-degree evaluation - 3 months
D Mean N Std. Deviation
1 4.2857 42 1.01898
2 3.9792 48 0.95627
3 3.1277 47 1.15377
4 3.1333 15 1.18723
Total 3.7171 152 1.16470
In Table 3, the satisfaction with the frequency of 360-degree evaluation among employ-
ees evaluated by the company is highest for the three-month interval. This is indicated by
the mean value of 4.2857, reecting a high level of agreement among employees. There-
fore, it can be inferred that a majority of employees are satised with the frequency of
360-degree evaluation being conducted every three months.
According to Table 4, the satisfaction regarding the time frame for implementing 360-
degree evaluations, as evaluated by the company, is notably low, as evidenced by the high-
est mean value (4.1489) indicating strong agreement among respondents. Consequently,
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
191
Table 3. Satisfaction on time frame for implementing of 360-degree evaluation
F Mean N Std. Deviation
1 2.0000 5 1.00000
2 2.8889 9 1.53659
3 3.2593 27 1.12976
4 3.8438 64 0.96311
5 4.1489 47 1.08305
Total 3.7171 152 1.16470
it can be concluded that a signicant proportion of employees feel unprepared regarding
the timing of 360-degree evaluation implementation.
Table 4. Satisfaction on 360-degree evaluation contributes to increased productivity -
Strongly Increases Productivity
H Mean N Std. Deviation
1 3.0714 14 1.63915
2 3.6667 15 1.23443
3 3.6000 30 1.16264
4 3.6481 54 1.01233
5 4.1538 39 1.03970
Total 3.7171 152 1.16470
According to Table 5, the satisfaction with how 360-degree evaluation contributes to
increased productivity, as evaluated by the company, is notably high. This is evident from
the highest mean value recorded (4.1538), indicating strong agreement among respondents.
Hence, it can be inferred that a majority of employees strongly agree that 360-degree
evaluation signicantly contributes to increased productivity.
According to Table 6, satisfaction with the integration of 360-degree evaluation into the
company’s reward system, as evaluated by the company, is notably high. This conclusion
is supported by the highest mean value recorded (4.1739), indicating strong agreement
among respondents. Therefore, it can be inferred that a signicant majority of employees
strongly agree with the integration of 360-degree evaluation into the company’s reward
system.
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
192
Table 5. Summary Statistics for Variable J
J Mean N Std. Deviation
1 3.0714 14 1.32806
2 3.3636 22 1.39882
3 3.4545 33 1.14812
4 3.8378 37 0.89795
5 4.1739 46 1.03932
Total 3.7171 152 1.16470
5.2 Factor Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is a statistical method in data analysis and psycho-
metrics used to uncover underlying patterns or structures within a dataset. It involves
examining factor loadings, communalities (variance explained by each factor), and the
variance explained by the retained factors.
Table 6. KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Statistic Value
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.775
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Approx. Chi-Square) 1.030E3
df 276
Sig. 0.000
The KMO Measure value is 0.775, indicating a substantial proportion of variance in
the variables attributed to underlying factors. This suggests that the data is suitable for
factor analysis. The signicance level of 0.000 supports the feasibility of conducting factor
analysis with the dataset.(see table 7).
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
The initial eigenvalues extracted, which are greater than 1, have yielded eight primary
components, accounting for 71.042% of the cumulative initial eigenvalues. Approximately
60% of the variability in the 24listed variables is captured by these four components.
Therefore, utilizing these eight components can eectively reduce the complexity of the
dataset, albeit with approximately 40% of information loss.
There is a clear understanding that the requested extracted initial eigenvalues greater
than 1 has resulted into six rst components extending 60.424 percent of cumulative
initial eigenvalues. Among the 26 listed variables, six components show the variability of
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
193
Table 7. Component Analysis Results
Cp Initial Eigenvalues Extraction SSL Rotation SSL
Total % of Var Cum % Total % of Var Cum % Total % of Var Cum %
1 5.471 22.794 22.794 5.471 22.794 22.794 2.830 11.790 11.790
2 1.906 7.943 30.737 1.906 7.943 30.737 2.556 10.649 22.439
3 1.741 7.256 37.993 1.741 7.256 37.993 2.141 8.922 31.361
4 1.663 6.927 44.920 1.663 6.927 44.920 1.985 8.271 39.632
5 1.531 6.379 51.300 1.531 6.379 51.300 1.785 7.438 47.070
6 1.155 4.813 56.112 1.155 4.813 56.112 1.623 6.764 53.834
7 1.035 4.311 60.424 1.035 4.311 60.424 1.582 6.590 60.424
8 0.951 3.962 64.386
9 0.888 3.699 68.085
10 0.850 3.542 71.627
11 0.760 3.167 74.795
12 0.730 3.041 77.835
13 0.640 2.666 80.502
14 0.594 2.475 82.977
15 0.582 2.423 85.400
16 0.534 2.226 87.626
17 0.517 2.156 89.782
18 0.478 1.992 91.774
19 0.439 1.828 93.602
20 0.365 1.520 95.122
21 0.352 1.465 96.587
22 0.319 1.329 97.917
23 0.278 1.159 99.076
24 0.222 0.924 100.000
Cp: Component, SSL: Summ of Squared Loadings, Var: Variance
69% approximately. So, the complexity of the dataset can be reduced through these six
components with almost 31% of lost information. (see table 8).
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
194
Table 8. Rotated Component Matrix
Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A - How actively do you participate in your performance evaluation? .548
B - How fair do you perceive the 360-degree evaluation process to be? .789
C - To what degree do you perceive 360-degree evaluation as a supportive tool for employees rather than a punitive measure? .369
D - How frequently evaluating and eectiveness of 360-degree performance appraisal in your organisation? .550
F - How prepared do you think organizations should be regarding the time frame for implementing 360-degree feedback? .577
G - Do you agree that the implementation of 360-degree performance appraisal helped the organization to achieve its major goals? .647
H - To what extent do you believe 360-degree evaluation contributes to increased productivity within this organization? .661
I - How would you assess the value of the resources committed to the 360-degree process? .511
J - Is the 360-degree evaluation integrated into the company’s reward system? .697
K - To what extent do you believe 360-degree assessment fosters teamwork and collaboration? .698
L - To what extent do you believe 360-degree evaluation 4ly aids employees in planning their Individual Development Plan (IDP)? .226
M - How frequently does management employ the results of 360-degree evaluation to shape strategies for employees’ training and development? .513
N - How does Goal Setting Theory suggest that feedback inuences employee motivation and performance? .811
O – How important do you think recognition of achievements is in reinforcing desired behaviours exhibited by employees? .522
P - Do you agree that recognizing employees’ eorts can lead to innovation and better performance? .693
Q - Do you believe performance appraisals play a signicant role in motivating employees through promotions? .703
R - Do you agree that promotions based on performance motivate other employees to improve their own performance? .692
S - How much do you believe performance appraisals can assist employees in leveraging their strengths through supervisory support? .578
T – How eectively does the organization provide support and resources to address the areas for improvement identied in your 360-degree evaluation? .792
U – How comfortable are you in providing feedback to your peers or colleagues as part of the 360-degree evaluation process? .783
V - How supportive is your immediate supervisor or manager in implementing the action plans derived from your 360-degree evaluation? .797
W - To what extent do you feel motivated to actively participate in the 360-degree evaluation process each cycle? .346
X - Based on the employee’s performance evaluation, do you recommend a salary increase? .693
Y - Considering the employee’s performance, do you recommend a bonus payment? .348
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
195
• Component 1 includes T – How eectively does the organization provide support and
resources to address the areas for improvement identied in your 360-degree evaluation,
U – How comfortable are you in providing feedback to your peers or colleagues as part
of the 360-degree evaluation process? And V - How supportive is your immediate
supervisor or manager in implementing the action plans derived from your 360-degree
evaluation?
• Component 2 - comprises F - How prepared do you think organizations should be
regarding the time frame for implementing 360-degree feedback , H - To what extent
do you believe 360-degree evaluation contributes to increased productivity within this
organization, I - How would you assess the value of the resources committed to the
360-degree process , J - Is the 360-degree evaluation integrated into the company’s
reward system , and K - To what extent do you believe 360-degree assessment fosters
teamwork and collaboration?
• Component 3 - comprises D - How frequently evaluating and eectiveness of 360-degree
performance appraisal in your organisation, G - Do you agree that the implementation
of 360-degree performance appraisal helped the organization to achieve its major goals,
P - Do you agree that recognizing employees’ eorts can lead to innovation and better
performance, and R - Do you agree that promotions based on performance motivate
other employees to improve their own performance?
• Component 4 – comprises O – How important do you think recognition of achieve-
ments is in reinforcing desired behaviours exhibited by employees, Q - Do you believe
performance appraisals play a signicant role in motivating employees through promo-
tions, and S - How much do you believe performance appraisals can assist employees
in leveraging their strengths through supervisory support?
• Component 5 – comprises M - How frequently does management employ the results
of 360-degree evaluation to shape strategies for employees’ training and development,
and X - Based on the employee’s performance evaluation, do you recommend a salary
increase?
• Component 6- comprises A - How actively do you participate in your performance
evaluation and B - How fair do you perceive the 360-degree evaluation process to be?
• Component 7 – comprises N - How does Goal Setting Theory suggest that feedback
inuences employee motivation and performance? As shown in the table, the values
carried lower than .500 are in general considered as the lowest impacting items which
should be extracted, so, the specied coded elements are C (To what degree do you
perceive 360-degree evaluation as a supportive tool for employees rather than a punitive
measure?), L (To what extent do you believe 360-degree evaluation successful ly aids
employees in planning their Individual Development Plan (IDP)?), and W (To what
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
196
extent do you feel motivated to actively participate in the 360-degree evaluation process
each cycle?).
5.3 Multiple Regression Analysis
5.3.1 Performance
Model Sum of
Squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig
Regression 48.577 4 12.144 11.425 .000
Residual 156.258 147 1.063
Total 204.836 151
Table 9. ANOVA a
Predictors: (Constant), PF3, PF4, PF1, PF2 Dependent Variable: DV - How satised
are you with the frequency of feedback provided through the 360-degree evaluation process?
Table 9shows the relationship among the items of Independent Variable (Entertain-
ment) and the increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by
360-degree evaluation compared to previous year. The F value between dependent variable
and predictors is 11.425, and the p value is 0.00. Which is highly signicant at 0.05 and
0.00 levels on the other hand, we can also conclude whether there is one level in items’
increase, there will be the increase of 156.258.
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evalution) = 3.299+ (-0.381) PF1 + (0.068) PF4+ (0.176) PF2 + (0.114) PF3.(see
table 10).
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation being inuenced by the rst factors of Performance, PF1 (How frequently
evaluating and eectiveness of 360-degree performance appraisal in your organisation?) is
2.981 (3.299- 0.381); if PF1 is increased by one unit, the the increase in the usage of
Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-degree evaluation will be increased
by 2.981. Likewise, if the predictors PF4 (To what extent do you believe 360-degree
contributes to increased productivity within this organization?), PF2 (Do you believe per-
formance appraisals play a signicant role in motivating employees through promotions?),
PF3(How much do you believe performance appraisals can assist employees in leverag-
ing their strengths through supervisory support?) are increased by one unit, the level of
satisfaction is increased for PF4 by 3.297; PF2 by 3.405; PF3 by 3.343.
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
197
Table 10. Coecients*
Model Unstd Coecients Std Coecients t Sig.
βSE β
1 (Constant) 3.299 .488 6.757 .000
PF1 - How frequently
evaluating and eective-
ness of 360-degree perfor-
mance appraisal in your
organisation?
-.381 .093 -.316 -4.071 .000
PF4 - To what extent
do you believe 360-degree
contributes to increased
productivity within this
organization?
.068 .072 .072 .935 .352
PF2 - Do you believe per-
formance appraisals play
a signicant role in moti-
vating employees through
promotions?
.176 .073 .188 2.426 .016
PF3 - How much do you
believe performance ap-
praisals can assist em-
ployees in leveraging their
strengths through super-
visory support?
.114 .071 .125 1.606 .111
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
198
degree evaluation is explained by “How much do you believe performance appraisals can
assist employees in leveraging their strengths through supervisory support” is the highest
with 3.405 followed by “Do you believe performance appraisals play a signicant role in
motivating employees through promotions” with3.343. The least is explained by “How
frequently evaluating and eectiveness of 360-degree performance appraisal in your organ-
isation” with 2.981and “To what extent do you believe 360-degree contributes to increased
productivity within this organization?” with 3.297
5.3.2 Feedback
Table 11. ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 17.269 2 8.635 6.859 .001
Residual 187.566 149 1.259
Total 204.836 151
a. Predictors: (Constant), FD2, FD1, b. Dependent Variable: How satised are you with
the frequency of feedback provided through the 360-degree evaluation process?
Table 11 shows the relationship among the items of Independent Variable (feedback)
and the increase in the level of satisfaction compared to previous year. The F value
between dependent variable and predictors is 6.859, and the p value is 0.00. Which is
highly signicant at 0.05 and 0.00 levels. On the other hand, we can also conclude whether
there is one level in items’ increase, there will be the increase of 187.566.
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation) = 2.470+ (0.095) FD1 + (0.257) FD2
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation being inuenced by the rst factors of Feedback , FD1 (How does Goal
Setting Theory suggest that feedback inuences employee motivation and performance?)
is 2.565 (2.470-0.095); if FD1 is increased by one unit, the the increase in the usage of
Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-degree evaluation will be increased
by 2.565 Likewise, if the predictors FD2 (How comfortable are you in providing feedback
to your peers or colleagues as part of the 360-degree evaluation process?), are increased
by one unit, the level of satisfaction is increased for FD2 by 2.727.(see table ??.
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation is explained by “How comfortable are you in providing feedback to your
peers or colleagues as part of the 360-degree evaluation process” is the highest with. 2.727.
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
199
Model Unstd Coecients Std Coecients t Sig.
βSE β
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.470 .387 6.388 .000
FD1 - How does Goal
Setting Theory suggest
that feedback inuences
employee motivation and
performance?
.095 .074 .100 1.271 .206
FD2 - How comfortable
are you in providing feed-
back to your peers or col-
leagues as part of the 360-
degree evaluation process?
.257 .074 .271 3.462 .001
The least is explained by “How does Goal Setting Theory suggest that feedback inuences
employee motivation and performance” with 2.565.
6 Implementation
Table 12. ANOVA*
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 42.352 3 14.117 12.859 .000
Residual 162.484 148 1.098
Total 204.836 151
* Predictors: (Constant), IM3, IM2, IM, Dependent Variable: How satised are you with
the frequency of feedback provided through the 360-degree evaluation process
Table 12 shows the relationship among the items of Independent Variable (Implemen-
tation) and the increase in the satisfaction levels compared to previous year. The F
value between dependent variable and predictors is12.859, and the p value is 0.00. Which
is highly signicant at 0.05 and 0.00 levels. On the other hand, we can also conclude
whether there is one level in items’ increase, there will be the increase of 162.484.
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation being inuenced by the rst factors of Implementation, IM1 (How pre-
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
200
Table 13. Coecients
Model Unstd Coecients Std Coecients t Sig.
βSE β
1 (Constant) 1.753 .461 3.803 .000
IM1 - How prepared do
you think organizations
should be regarding the
time frame for implement-
ing 360-degree feedback?
.397 .090 .344 4.416 .000
IM2 - Do you agree
that the implementation
of 360-degree performance
appraisal helped the orga-
nization to achieve its ma-
jor goals?
-.075 .069 -.083 -1.096 .275
IM3 - How would you as-
sess the value of the re-
sources committed to the
360-degree process?
.164 .075 .170 2.185 .030
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
201
pared do you think organizations should be regarding the time frame for implementing
360-degree feedback?) is 2.15 (1.753+0.397); if IM1 is increased by one unit, the the
increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-degree eval-
uation will be increased by 2.15 Likewise, if the predictors IM2(Do you agree that the
implementation of 360-degree performance appraisal helped the organization to achieve
its major goals), are increased by one unit, IM3(How would you assess the value of the
resources committed to the 360-degree process?)the level of satisfaction is increased for
IM2 by1.678,for IM3 by 1.917.(see table 13).
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation is explained by “How prepared do you think organizations should be
regarding the time frame for implementing 360-degree feedback?” is the highest with.
2.15 followed by the least is explained by “How would you assess the value of the resources
committed to the 360-degree process?” with 1.917 is followed by the least is explained by
“Do you agree that the implementation of 360-degree performance appraisal helped the
organization to achieve its major goals” by 1.678.
7 Incentives
Table 14. ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 36.232 7 5.176 4.421 .000
Residual 168.604 144 1.171
Total 204.836 151
a. Predictors: (Constant), INC7, INC6, INC5, INC2, INC1, INC3, INC4, b. Dependent
Variable: How satised are you with the frequency of feedback provided through the
360-degree evaluation process?
Table 14 shows the relationship among the items of Independent Variable (Incentives)
and the increase in the satisfaction levels compared to previous year. The F value between
dependent variable and predictors’ is4.421, and the p value is 0.00. Which is highly
signicant at 0.05 and 0.00 levels. On the other hand, we can also conclude whether there
is one level in items’ increase, there will be the increase of168.604.
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation being inuenced by the rst factors of Implementation, INC1 – (Is the
360-degree evaluation integrated into the company’s reward system?) is 2.15 (1.753+0.397);
if IM1 is increased by one unit, the the increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
202
Table 15. Regression Analysis
Model Unstd Coecients Std Coecients t Sig.
βSE β
1 (Constant) 1.834 .583 3.148 .002
INC1 - Is the 360-degree
evaluation integrated into
the company’s reward sys-
tem?
.159 .082 .179 1.945 .054
INC2 - How important do
you think recognition of
achievements is in rein-
forcing desired behaviours
exhibited by employees?
.095 .077 .104 1.235 .219
INC3 - Do you agree that
recognizing employees’ ef-
forts can lead to inno-
vation and better perfor-
mance?
-.055 .077 -.065 -.709 .480
INC4 - To what extent do
you believe 360-degree as-
sessment fosters teamwork
and collaboration?
.143 .097 .136 1.467 .144
INC5 - Do you agree that
promotions based on per-
formance motivate other
employees to improve
their own performance?
-.024 .073 -.029 -.333 .740
INC6 - Based on the em-
ployee’s performance eval-
uation, do you recommend
a salary increase?
.204 .089 .181 2.280 .024
INC7 - Considering the
employee’s performance,
do you recommend a
bonus payment?
-.040 .074 -.047 -.545 .587
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
203
Table 16. ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 29.658 3 9.886 8.352 .000
Residual 175.178 148 1.184
Total 204.836 151
a. Predictors: (Constant), DL4, DL2, DL3, b. Dependent Variable: How are you satised
with the frequency of feedback provided through the 360-degree evaluation process?
feedback provided by 360-degree evaluation will be increased by 2.15 Likewise, if the pre-
dictors INC2 – (How important do you think recognition of achievements is in reinforcing
desired behaviours exhibited by employees?), are increased by one unit, INC3 - Do you
agree that recognizing employees’ eorts can lead to innovation and better performance?
Are increased by one-unit INC4 - To what extent do you believe 360-degree assessment
fosters teamwork and collaboration? Are increased by one-unit INC5 – (Do you agree
that promotions based on performance motivate other employees to improve their own
performance?) are increased by one-unit INC6 – (Based on the employee’s performance
evaluation, do you recommend a salary increase?) are increased by one-unit INC7 – (Con-
sidering the employee’s performance, do you recommend a bonus payment?)the level of
satisfaction is increased for IM2 by1.678, for IM3 by 1.917.(see table ??.
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation is explained by “How prepared do you think organizations should be
regarding the time frame for implementing 360-degree feedback?” is the highest with.
2.15 followed by the least is explained by “How would you assess the value of the resources
committed to the 360-degree process?” with 1.917 is followed by the least is explained by
“Do you agree that the implementation of 360-degree performance appraisal helped the
organization to achieve its major goals” by 1.678.
8 Development
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-degree
evaluation) = 1.685+ (0.264) DL2 + (0.157) DL3+ (0.114) DL4.(see table 16).
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of Development provided by
360-degree evaluation being inuenced by the rst factors of Development, DL2 (How fre-
quently does management employ the results of 360-degree evaluation to shape strategies
for employees’ training and development?) is 1.949 (1.685+0.264); if DL2 is increased by
one unit, the the increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
204
Table 17. Coecients*
Model Unstd Coecients Std Coecients t Sig.
βSE β
1 (Constant) 1.685 .433 3.897 .000
DL2 - How frequently does
management employ the
results of 360-degree eval-
uation to shape strate-
gies for employees’ train-
ing and development?
.264 .095 .217 2.770 .006
DL3 - How eectively does
the organization provide
support and resources to
address the areas for im-
provement identied in
your 360-degree evalua-
tion?
.157 .080 .180 1.962 .052
DL4 - How supportive is
your immediate supervi-
sor or manager in imple-
menting the action plans
derived from your 360-
degree evaluation?
.114 .089 .118 1.280 .203
Unstd-Unstandardized, Std-Standardized, SE-Standard Error
by 360-degree evaluation will be increased by 1.949 Likewise, if the predictors DL3(How
eectively does the organization provide support and resources to address the areas for
improvement identied in your 360-degree evaluation?), DL4(How supportive is your im-
mediate supervisor or manager in implementing the action plans derived from your 360-
degree evaluation)are increased by one unit, the level of satisfaction is increased for DL3
by1.842 for DL4 by 1.799.(see table 17).
The increase in the usage of Increasing the frequency of feedback provided by 360-
degree evaluation is explained by “How frequently does management employ the results of
360-degree evaluation to shape strategies for employees’ training and development” is the
highest with.1.949, followed by “How supportive is your immediate supervisor or manager
in implementing the action plans derived from your 360-degree evaluation” with 1.842;
The least is explained by “How supportive is your immediate supervisor or manager in
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
205
implementing the action plans derived from your 360-degree evaluation 1.799.
9 Conclusion
In conclusion, to enhance employees’ perception of the 360-degree evaluation system at
Apitoria Pharma Pvt Ltd, several key strategies can be implemented. Firstly, ensur-
ing clarity and transparency in the performance appraisal system, along with providing
adequate training and resources, will help employees navigate the process eectively. Sec-
ondly, fostering a culture of open communication and constructive feedback is crucial, em-
powering employees to express their opinions without fear of reprisal. Thirdly, highlighting
the value of resources invested in the evaluation system can help employees understand
its signicance in their growth and development. Establishing a clear timeframe for the
evaluation process and aligning salary increases with its outcomes will further reinforce
its importance. Finally, evaluating the eectiveness of training and development initia-
tives in addressing identied needs will contribute to overall employee satisfaction and
performance. By implementing these strategies, Apitoria Pharma can foster a culture of
continuous improvement and employee development, ultimately enhancing organizational
eectiveness and success.
References
Baroda, S., Sharma, C., & Bhatt, J. K. (2012). 360 Degree Feedback Appraisals- An
Innovative Approach of Performance Management System. International Journal
of Management Information Technology, 1(2), 53–66.
Huang, K., Huang, C., Chen, K., & Yien, J. (2011). Performance Appraisal - Management
by Objective and Assessment Centre. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(3),
271–276. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2011.271.276
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (2000). Feedback eectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be
improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129–139.
Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: Mediating
and moderating roles of work motivation. International Journal of Human Re-
source Management, 17(3), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500521581
Meenakshi, G. (2012). Multi source feedback based performance appraisal system using
Fuzzy logic decision support system. International Journal on Soft Computing,
3(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijsc.2012.3108
Mehrotra, S., & Phillips, S. G. (2013). Awareness of Banking Professionals About Perfor-
mance Appraisal Methods: An Empirical Study. IUP Journal of Bank Manage-
ment, 12(4), 45–57.
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
206
Mulvaney, M. A., McKinney, W. R., & Grodsky, R. (2012). The Development of a Pay-
for-Performance Appraisal System for Municipal Agencies: A Case Study. Public
Personnel Management, 41(3), 505–533.
Panda, T., Patro, U. S., Das, S., Venugopal, K., & Saibabu, N. (2024). Blockchain in Hu-
man Resource Management: A Bibliographic Investigation and Thorough Eval-
uation. In Harnessing blockchain-digital twin fusion for sustainable investments
(pp. 86–119). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1878-2
Rokendro, S. N. (2010). A Conceptual Vision on 360 Degree Assessment for Entrepreneurial
Appraisal. Advances in Management, 3(3), 25–31.
Somanadh, K. V., & Venugopal, K. (2023). Assessment of Predictors Impacting Employee
Work Life Quality In manufacturing Sector. International Journal of Research and
Analytical Reviews (IJRAR), 10(3), 221–231.
Sravani, K., Saumendra, D., & Venugopal, K. (2023). Assessment of Factors Inuencing
Job Engagement of Software Employees: A Rapid Literature Review. In Assess-
ment of factors inuencing job engagement of software employees: A rapid lit-
erature review (pp. 141–148). Forum for Intellectual Academicians; Researchers
Publications.
Sudarsan, A. (2009). Employee Performance Appraisal: The (Un) Suitability of Manage-
ment by Objectives and Key Result Areas. CURIE Journal, 2(2), 47–54.
Tibebe, G., Wale, B., & Venugopal, K. (2018). The Eects of Internal Branding on Em-
ployee Brand Commitment: In Case of University of Gondar, Ethiopia. SSRN
Electronic Journal, 6(3), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3430321
Venugopal., K., & Deekonda, P. (2021). Organizational Eorts And Employee Satisfaction
On Training And Development: In Case Of Manufacturing Units, Srikakulam,
A.P. The International Multidisciplinary Conference [MDRC 2.0] Proceedings,
322–331.
Wadhwa, S., & Wadhwa, P. (2011). A study of 360-degree Appraisal and Feedback Sys-
tem for eective Implementation in Indian Corporate Sector. VSRD International
Journal of Business Management Research, 1(4), 205–216.
Integrated Business Excellence- Synergizing Management, Finance, HR, and Marketing
Editors: Madhavi. K, P. Venkiah Babu, Bhargava. N
DOI:10.48001/978-81-966500-6-3-14 | ISBN: 978-81-966500-6-3 | Copyright ©2024 QTanalytics®
207
