Performance Management System at

Attock Refinery Limited

Group 4 Team Plaster

Nikhil Raysam

Gauravkumar Pawar

Alberto Ruiz
Rules: Participation, Participation ….. and Participation
 Introduction

01 ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED (ARL)

02 Asif Saeed - Human Resources Senior Manager

03 How to improve the Performance Management System

● Attock Group is a vertically integrated oil company in Pakistan (Obaid & Janjua, 2015)

● Operations in oil exploration, refining, manufacturing petroleum products, chemicals, etc

● ARL is a subsidiary of the Attock Group and was established in 1922

● ARL went public in 1979 and became an industry leader by taking 70% of the market share in crude oil refinement in Pakistan (Obaid

& Janjua, 2015)

● ARL has consistently upgraded plants to remain competitive (Awan, 2015)

Internal Affairs

● Progressive company that not only focused on profit, but also internal employee relations

● Special emphasis given to commitment to mission statement and core values

● HR focus on employee training and development (Obaid & Janjua, 2015)

Succession Management
Core Values

Performance Awards

Foster Learning Culture

● HR focuses on the development of employees and ensuring a prosperous culture that breeds learning

● Room for improvement to the performance management system (PMS) at ARL despite changes

● PMS broken down into 2 components: Performance Competencies and Performance Targets

● Current PMS fails to connect employee recognition with performance (Obaid & Janjua, 2015)

● Top performing employees do not feel acknowledged or recognized for their contributions

● There needs to be a greater shift towards establishing a clear PMS, and consequently a rewards and compensation

structure based on the appraisal

● PMS fails to truly recognize strengths and weaknesses

● Question; What changes need to be made to the current PMS that helps satisfy employees?
 Historic vs Current PMS

Pre-1999 Post-1999
● Subjective ratings, which went unjustified ● Major modifications with the addition of objective settings
● Minimal distinction between well and poor performers ● Later broken in 2 parts with weightings:
● Behavioral objectives - none quantifiable ○ Targets Appraisal (40%) - targets
● Broadly based on 5 categories, which were ○ Performance Appraisal (60%) - competency
subcategorized into 32 ● Exclusion of promotion recommendations
● Promotion unaddressed ● Changed increment range
● Rise to the need for a performance-based PMS ● Employees felt PMS lacked clarity and appraisers were
biased
Should ARL change the weightings of performance objectives and
competencies?
Challenges in current system

● Similar performance rating criteria across various departments

● The common increase of increments across the organization (Obaid & Janjua, 2015)

● The 60-40 ratio division of the competencies to the target goal settings

● The appraiser or the manager had complete ability to goal setting (Obaid & Janjua, 2015)

● Same metrics for assessing performance across departments

● Objectives not directly tied to competency

● Using measurable performance indicators based on the objectives achieved with discernable target

● Face to Face discussion with the employee about the goal and achievements .

● Competency to be prioritized over behavioral capabilities

● Both are to be assessed based on nature of an individual’s department.

● A weightage of 70 % to the individual contribution and 30% to the behavioral performance is ideal.

● The ratings could be designed in a way that it is modified depending on the objective of each department

● HR team can be involved in setting some behavioral goals across the organization
Should ARL make adjustments to increment levels?

Challenges in current system

● Attock Refinery has a history of intensive performance management system.

● Increment percentages were according to the final aggregated rating i.e. ranged from 1 to 5

● Marginal difference in the incremental rate between performers of different ratings was the biggest challenge.

● Rewards and Recognitions were not linked to the appraisal system, hence the increments were not proportional to

performance.
Should ARL make adjustments to increment levels?
Why the Change?

● Major reason for attrition towards a company is usually compensation

● The current PMS can be the reason for employee disengagement in the long-run

Proposed Solutions

● Increase the overall increment level for all the bands across the organization

● More factual discussions about job-related behaviors and more streamlined process for goal setting

● A consistent pay directly related to performance benefits

● Additional rewards to acknowledge good performance

● Refine the ways the reviews are conducted to enhance the importance of the assessment process

● A system where employees are rewarded through increments for achieving targets
Alternate Potential Changes

● Do not create a generic performance management plan for the company, it should be
department specific by performance

● Keep a common KPI on the six core value

● Increment should be based on two factors Inflation rate+employee performance

● Include the performance rewards on the appraisal process

● Create a specific performance management plan by departments regarding objectives.

● Increment on the band salary rates.

● Have the six values as part of the performance value.

● ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED is a committed company with high performance and meaningful

behaviors.

● Asif Saeed is willing to explore better ways to recognize performance and core values inside the

company

●Proposed Solution takes in consideration the performance rewards but is crucial to

reinforce the six values (powerful culture). There is a positive and significant

relationship between institutional ownership and business ethics (Mili, et al, 2019)
References

Awan. A. G. (2015) Cost of High Employees Turnover Rate in Oil Refinery Industry of Pakistan. Institute of
Southern Punjab-Pakistan. Vol 5(2).

Obaid, A., & Janjua, U. (2015). Attock Refinery Limited: Performance Management. 16.

Mili, M; Gharbi, S; Teulon, F; Sahut, JM; Peris-Ortiz, M. (2019) Business Ethics, Company Value and Ownership
Structure. Journal of Management and Governance. Vol 23(4) p.973-987.