INTRODUCTION:

‘Effectiveness is a function of clear authority and discipline within an Organization.’ - Fayol; ‘Effectiveness is a function of productivity resulting from employee satisfaction.’ - Mayo; ‘Effectiveness was determined by factors such as production maximization, cost minimalization, technological excellence, etc.’ - Taylor (Robbins, 1990). Effectiveness, as defined by some acclaimed management thinkers, like Fayol, Mayo and Taylor, shows that it covers a wide range of factors. ‘Organizational effectiveness’ is a term with varied definitions but it can be broadly defined as how successful an organization is in achieving the outcomes the organization intends to produce. The terms ‘performance’ and ‘effectiveness’ are often used interchangeably (March and Sutton, 1997). There are various ways and models by which effectiveness can be measured and Performance Management System (PMS) is one such for assessing the ‘effectiveness’ of the human resources of an organization. Many organizations implement PMS with the sole intent of achieving better organizational results. Of the various models on organizational effectiveness, McKinsey’s 7 S Model has withstood the test of time. It measures the effectiveness of an organization from 7 perspectives, viz., 7 Ss. Power is the backbone of any economy and an essential part of the day-to-day life. Hence, effectiveness of the organizations in this sector, in terms of the services rendered by them, is a must. By integrating the 4 loops of the PMS with the 7 S’s of McKinsey’s model - an integration of HRM with Strategic Management- effectiveness of the public sector power utilities in West Bengal has been measured.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

‘Since an organization can be effective or ineffective on a number of different facets that may be relatively independent of each other, organizational effectiveness has no universal definition.’ (Campbell, 1977). There are various schools of thought regarding the definitions of organizational effectiveness and the factors that affect organizational effectiveness (Angle and Perry, 1981; Dikmen, Birgonul and Kizitas, 2005).

Effectiveness has been defined as the ability of an organization to manage ambiguity, have flexibility, customer-orientation, productivity, leanness in form, awareness about its major area of business and high empowerment of its employees (Peters and Waterman, 1982); meet critical interdependencies (Pfeffer, 1994) and produce results that satisfy multiple goals (Goodman and Pennings, 1980).

High performance human resource systems can contribute to achieving sustainable competitive advantage and organizational effectiveness to the extent that they impact upon the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors that form the basis of organizational learning (López, Peón, and Ordás, 2006).

The models of organizational effectiveness initially focused on the achievement of goals (goal model). Thereafter, they considered the resources and processes necessary to attain those goals (system model), the powerful constituencies gravitating around the organization (strategic-constituencies model), the values on which the evaluation of effectiveness are grounded (competing values model) and the absence of ineffectiveness factors as a source of effectiveness (ineffectiveness model). (www.Fsa.Ulaval.Ca/Html/ Fileadmin/Pdf/Ecole_Comptabilite/ Publications/2003-04-3.pdf/)

However, one of the most popular models on organizational effectiveness is McKinsey 7S framework, developed by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, in the early 1980s. Based on their study of 42 companies which were effective and well managed, it was clear that those companies:

1. had a bias for action and getting things accomplished

2. stayed close to the customers and understood their needs

3. allowed autonomy to employees and fostered entrepreneurial spirit

4. increased employee productivity through employee participation

5. employees actively handled problems at all levels

6. stayed close to business they knew

7. had a simple structure with minimal number of people in support systems

8. blended tight centralized controls, for protecting the companies core values, with loose controls in other areas to foster risk-taking and innovation (Waterman, Peters and Phillips, 1980)

The 7S model advocates that there are 7 internal aspects of an organization that are interdependent and need to be aligned to be successful. The 7Ss comprise 3 Hard Ss (Strategy, Structure and Systems) and 4 Soft Ss (Shared Values, Skills, Staff and Style), as explained below:

· Shared Values or superordinate goals refer to the central belief and attitude of an organization.

· Strategy stands for steps to achieve the identified goals.

· Structure means the way an organization is organized, i.e., the way in which the organization's units relate to each other.

· Systems include the procedures, processes and routines that characterize how the work should be done.

· Staff refers to the number and type of personnel within the organization.

· Style is how key managers behave in achieving the organization's goals.

· Skills are the actual skills and competencies of the employees (Pascale and Athos, 1981)

‘Hard’ elements are easier to define or identify and management can directly influence them, e.g., strategy statements, organization charts, IT systems, etc. ‘Soft’ elements, on the other hand, can be more difficult to describe and are less tangible and more influenced by culture. The model, as depicted below, shows the interdependency of the elements and indicates how a change in one affects all the others.

Figure 1: McKinsey 7 S Model

Placing Shared Values in the middle of the model emphasizes that these values are central to the development of all the other critical elements. The company's Structure, Strategy, Systems, Style, Staff and Skills all stem from why the organization was originally created, and what it stands for. (www.mindtools.com).The original vision of the company was formed from the values of the creators. As the values change, so do all the other elements.

The 7S model can be used in a wide variety of situations where an alignment perspective is useful, for example:

· improve the performance of a company

· examine the likely effects of future changes within a company

· align departments and processes during a merger or acquisition

· determine how best to implement a proposed strategy.

PMS is ‘associated with an approach to creating a shared vision of the purpose and aims of the organization, helping each employee understand and recognize their part in contributing to them, and, in so doing, manage and enhance the performance of both individuals and the organization’ (Fletcher, 1993). The goal of PMS is to help boost employee performance and, ultimately, the productivity of the business. Performance Management (PM) is, therefore, necessary to achieve the strategic objectives and, hence, success of business organizations (Otley, 2005; Kent, 2004).

A study on the impact and trend of PM has shown that it is an important business system and it makes a difference in organizational performance. There is some evidence that, in the public sector, managerial appraisal is not conducted very effectively (Huber,1983), with appraisal interview sessions lasting not more than 15 minutes and raters depending more on 3^rd party complaints than on the direct interaction with the appraisees (Finn and Fontaine, 1983). Earlier, Deming (1982) stated that performance appraisal system is devastating to individuals and destructive to organizations. A study by Hewitt Associates (1994) titled The Impact of Performance Management on Organizational Success has substantiated that PMSs can have a significant impact on financial performance and productivity. The productivity of each and every employee influences the success of the company as a whole.

PMS has broadly been seen as comprising three main processes – planning, improving and reviewing (Bredrup and Bredrup, 1995; Mabey and Salaman, 1995; Torrington and Hall, 1995; Ainsworth and Smith, 1993; Guin, 1987). Hartle (1995) developed the ‘mixed model’ which stresses on planning, managing, reviewing and rewarding. Most organizations follow this 4-stage model now-a-days, which can be further detailed as – Setting Individual Business Roles and relating those to the job objectives of work groups and business through Performance Planning, Performance Measurement and Review, Rewards and Performance Development (Armstrong and Baron, 2007). According to Kent (2004), PM process comprises certain essential parts – a process to manage the organization’s performance against objectives, and a process to monitor progress, audit results measured against a plan, and take action, if necessary, to maintain strategic direction. There is an increasing agreement that effective approaches to management are those that propose organizations with sustainable competitive edge (Lawler, et al. 1998). Therefore, PM can be one of the approaches to achieve better results.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY:

The purpose of this paper is to analyze what role human performance plays in the effectiveness of 3 state power sector utilities in West Bengal – West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. (WBPDCL), West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (WBSETCL) and West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL). The basis of the 7 S Models is that all the seven elements need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing for an organization to perform well. The study shows which of the 7 Ss of the McKinsey’s 7 S model is predominant in an organization and whether Shared Values, which is at the centre of the model, has any special impact on the effectiveness of an organization or not. It also highlights which PMS parameter contributes the most in determining the importance of a specific ‘S’. In other words, the study helps identify which ‘S’ needs to be realigned to improve performance or maintain alignment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

The study is based on both primary and secondary data.

Primary data were collected by administering a structured questionnaire followed by interview. The questionnaire was designed covering the 4 parameters of PMS [setting goals, appraising performance through an instrument, developing through training and retaining through reward and recognition] with respect to each of the 7 Ss (Shared Values, Strategy, Structure, Systems, Style, Staff and Skills) of McKinsey’s 7 S Model and 28 (i.e., 4 x 7) questions were asked. The scale used is a 5-point Likert scale, in which.

1. Strongly Disagree

2. Disagree

3. Neither Agree nor Disagree

4. Agree

5. Strongly Agree

In order to ensure that a respondent is not sensitized, the statements were deliberately jumbled. There are a few statements where Strongly Disagree (1) or Disagree (2) is more preferable than Strongly Agree (5) or Agree (4), i.e., having a score of 5 is less preferable than having a score of 1. In the context of the overall score of a company, the scores with respect to such statements have been reversed, i.e., those who have marked 1 have been allotted a score of 5. The other direct statements have been assigned the score in the usual manner. A descriptive statistical tool like Mean has been used for data analysis. Comparison has been made – both inter-company-wise and intra-company-wise – between the highest and the lowest Mean for the 7 S elements against the PMS parameters.

The respondents belong to the ranks of Director (HR) and General Manager (HR). They were selected because the study is an in-depth one with a focus on assessing the role of employee performance measured through Executive Performance Management System. As they are part of the policy-making structure and are also responsible for policy implementation, it was assumed that they would be able to give a candid view about their PMSs and future plans without bias.

Secondary data regarding the said organizations were collected from published annual reports, company brochures, company websites, business journals, business newspapers, etc. Literature review has been done by intensive reading of a good number of papers published in various journals on the subject.

The scope of the study has been limited to WBPDCL, WBSETCL and WBSEDCL. The reason for doing so is that the origin of these companies is the same but they have been carved out for more specialized functions and complementary roles. There is also continuity of interdependence as WBPDCL generates power, WBSETCL transmits it and WBSEDCL distributes the same. Hence, they are all dependent on each other for completion of the entire process. Net profitability has been considered as the indicator of effectiveness as all the 3 companies have originated from the same mother company, belong to the same sector, under the same state government and have to abide by the Government guidelines while performing their activities.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

WBPDCL

Figure 2: WBPDCL’s 7S score

With respect to the 7 S Model, it has been observed that Shared Values of WBPDCL have got the minimum Mean, which is the minimum in terms of all the other Ss of its own and in comparison to Shared Values of the other two companies – WBSETCL and WBSEDCL. While WBPDCL has scored the lowest in target setting and reward and recognition in Shared Values, it has the second highest score in training and development along with WBETCL and all the three companies have the same rating in appraisal. Barring Staff and Style, WBPDCL has the highest Mean in Structure and Skills and jointly with WBSETCL in Strategy and Systems. WBPDCL has scored the highest in Skills (3.8), followed by Systems (3.3). It has the same Mean in Strategy and Structure -3 each and in Style and Staff - 2.5 each. In Structure, it has scored the highest in all the 4 parameters of PMS, independently in target setting and training and development and jointly with WBSETCL in appraisal and all the 3 companies have the same score in reward and recognition. In Style, WBPDCL has scored the highest in training and development and all the 3 companies have the same rating in target setting. In Skills, where WBPDCL has the highest Mean, it has scored lowest in reward and recognition and highest in the other 3 parameters of PMS. In contrast, in Staff, it has the lowest score in target setting and appraisal, uniform score with the other companies in training and development and the highest score in reward and recognition. In Strategy, WBPDCL’s biggest contributor is training and development, followed by appraisal (jointly with WBSETCL) and rewards and recognition (jointly with WBSESDCL). The major contributors in Systems are again target setting and appraisal.

Though WBPDCL has scored the highest in Skills, a soft S, the Mean of all other soft Ss are much lower than all its hard Ss, having a Mean of 3 and above.

WBSETCL

Figure 3: WBSETCL’s 7S score

WBSETCL has the second highest Mean in Shared Values amongst the 3 companies but has the highest Mean in target setting. Amongst the 7 Ss, Shared Values of WBSETCL have scored the third highest Mean. Its highest score is in Systems (3.3), followed by Strategy (3). The remaining Ss are in the following order: Skills (2.5), Structure (2.3), Staff (2) and Style (1.8). Therefore, in this case also, it can be seen that the hard Ss except Structure have higher Mean than the soft Ss. Of all these 7Ss, WBSETCL has scored the highest rating in target setting in Shared Values followed by the same in Skills. In Strategy, again target setting and appraisal ratings have been the biggest contributors. In Systems, both appraisal and training and development have helped in scoring the highest Mean. Therefore, it may be concluded that the company devised its Strategy effectively, had the Systems in place for implementation, and had been able to inculcate the Shared Values among its employees to some extent. WBSETCL needs to improve its Style of functioning and effectiveness of its Staff and Structure. Since WBSETCL is in its nascent stage of being an independent company, the new structure (i.e., relationships) is probably taking time to establish.

WBSEDCL

Figure 4: WBSEDCL’s 7S score

WBSEDCL, also carved out from the parent company like WBSETCL, has been able to have more Shared Values among its employees than the other 2 companies. It has got the highest Mean in Staff (3.3), followed by Shared Values (3) and Systems (3). Both Strategy and Style are tied at 2.8. Skills have a low Mean (2.3), followed by the lowest Mean (1.5) in Structure. As a matter of fact, this is the lowest Mean among all the 7 Ss of the 3 companies taken together.

Of all these 7Ss, WBSEDCL has scored the highest rating in training and development and rewards and recognition and second highest rating in target setting in Shared Values. All the three companies have the same poor rating of 2 in performance appraisal under Shared Values. In Structure, WBSEDCL has a very poor rating (lowest) in all the 4 parameters of PMS except rewards and recognition where all the 3 companies are tied at the lowest rating of 1. In Style, appraisal rating and reward and recognition rating have been the biggest contributors to its highest Mean score of 2.8 whereas in Skill, its rating in reward and recognition has the highest possible score. This is very interesting as the other 2 companies have low ratings of 1 and 2 in this parameter in comparison to its 5. In Strategy, WBSEDCL has scored the second highest rating in all the 4 parameters of PMS. WBSEDCL has the highest Mean in Staff and lowest in System. While in Staff, target setting and appraisal ratings have been the major contributors, in System, rewards and recognition is the biggest contributor.

In terms of comparison between hard Ss and soft Ss, the only exception is WBSEDCL as, in its case, the highest Mean score belongs to a soft S and the lowest Mean score belongs to a hard S. The second and third highest scores of 3 and 2.8 respectively are tied between a Soft S and a Hard S respectively, i.e., Shared Values (Soft S) and Systems (Hard S) have a score of 3 each and Style (Soft S) and Strategy (Hard S) have 2.8 each.

Company-wise Analysis of the 4 PMS Parameters:

WBPDCL has failed to disseminate clear business goals among its employees though it has set up SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-based) targets. While recognition is considered important, its reward and recognition programmes are neither linked to the organization’s mission nor are the employees aware of when their efforts are being recognised. However, it has been able to share personal objectives with the team and ensure development of its employees through a structured training and development system designed to impart need-based training. This has, in turn, helped develop able supervisors and employees with professional approach towards the task. With emphasis on both technical and behavioural attributes in the appraisal system, the best performers are clearly identified. Unfortunately, the appraisal process is independent of the business planning process. Therefore, it can be concluded that, in spite of having talented and trained employees in the organization, WBPDCL’s effectiveness is limited by its inability to make the employees aware of its vision, mission and business plans and motivate them through proper reward programmes.

WBSETCL has clear business goals but it lack team goals. Role clarity is an objective of its PMS and its appraisal system also rates technical and behavioral attributes. However, employees lack an understanding of the appraisal instrument in vogue, supervisors lack the skill of conducting appraisal, and there is absence of congenial environment and lack of trust between the supervisors and the subordinates in terms of amicable discussion on performance. The organization lacks proper reward and recognition initiatives and is the worst amongst the 3 state power sector utilities under study in terms of this parameter. However, it is the only one among the 3 organizations to encourage employees to know the job contents of the next higher post so that they can make ready themselves for the same.

Like WBSETCL, WBSEDCL also has clear business goals but it lack team goals. It has the best reward and recognition programmes amongst all the 3 organizations. It has developed a congenial HRD climate so that employees can discuss their appraisal freely with their superiors. Training and development is also well structured.

An analysis of the scores relating to the 4 PMS parameters show that WBSETCL (Mean: 3) is marginally ahead of WBPDCL in target setting. However, in appraisal, WBSETCL has the lowest Mean. WBPDCL has the highest Mean in this category, followed by WBSEDCL. WBPDCL (Mean: 3.3) is far ahead of the other 2 companies (Mean: 2.6 each) as far as training and development is concerned. In reward and recognition, however, WBSEDCL has the highest Mean (3) in comparison to WBSETCL’s 2.3 and WBPDCL’s 2 – the lowest among all parameters. On the whole, training and development has got the highest Mean (3.3), followed by appraisal (3.1), target setting and reward and recognition.

Shared Values and Net Profitability:

Given below are the scores of the 3 organizations in terms of Shared Values and their net profits from 2011-12 to 2015-16 including difference in percentage of the last two years (YOY).

Table 1: Mean Shared Values of WBPDCL, WBSETCL and WBSEDCL

Shared Values (Mean)	WBPDCL	WBSETCL	WBSEDCL
Shared Values (Mean)	1.8	2.8	3

(Source: Field Survey)

A look at the net profits, considered as the most commonly-used measure of organizational effectiveness, of all the 3 companies, as given below, reveals an interesting relationship.

Table 2: Net Profits of WBPDCL, WBSETCL and WBSEDCL (2011-12 to 2015-16)

in Rs Crore)

	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	YOY %
WBPDCL	380.30	131.66	78.43	22.83	20.61	(9.7)
WBSETCL	172	333.02	368.76	269.26	437.12	62.34
WBSEDCL	73.48	81.72	19.07	19.82	21.58	8.87

(Source: Net Profit data as available in Annual Reports on each company website)

(Figures Organizations, with lower Shared Values, have lower net profits compared to those with higher Shared Values. WBPDCL’s net profit is showing a decreasing trend from Rs 380.3 cr in 2011-12 to Rs 20.61 in 2015-16. It has a very low Mean (1.8) in its Shared Values. WBSETCL, on the other hand, is showing an increasing trend with a dip in 2014-15 which has been taken care of in 2015-16. WBSEDCL has a huge dip in net profit in 2013-14 but thereafter it is again showing an increasing trend. Interestingly, both WBSETCL and WBSEDCL have Shared Values which are close to each other and much higher than WBPDCL.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The 7Ss are not aligned in any of the organizations covered. However, a few of the Ss do have the same Mean score but its deviation with the other Ss is also quite high, as summarised below:

WBPDCL: Range of Mean is 1.8 to 3.8. Aligned Ss: Structure and Strategy (3) and Style and Staff (2.5)

WBSETCL: Range of Mean is 1.8 to 3.3. Aligned Ss: None

WBSEDCL: Range of Mean is 1.5 to 3.3. Aligned Ss: Shared Values and Systems (3) and Style and Strategy (2.8).

In case of WBPDCL, Skills is the most predominant S followed closely by all the Hard Ss – Systems (3.3), Structure (3) and Strategy (3). Despite having excellent Skills, proper Systems for implementation of its Strategy and a Structure to support it, the organizational effectiveness of WBPDCL is affected by its Style of functioning and the management’s inability to instill Shared Values among its Staff.

In WBSETCL, Systems is the most dominant S, followed closely by Strategy (3) and Shared Values (2.8). In WBSEDCL, Staff plays the most prominent role, followed by Shared Values (3) and Systems (3). These two newly created organizations are yet to establish a Structure of functioning with WBSEDCL lacking it more than WBSETCL. Both the companies also have more or less the same Skill set. In terms of Shared Values and Strategy too, the companies are almost at par wuth the ranking of these Ss being reversed, i.e., among its 7Ss, WBSEDCL has the second highest Mean in Shared Values (3) [as well as in Systems] and third highest in Strategy (2.8). This Mean and corresponding ranking are just the reverse in case of WBSETCL. The only major difference between the two is in Staff. Where WBSEDCL’s Staff is the strongesr among its 7S (3.3), WBSETCL’s is in the 6^th position (Mean: 2). With excellent Staff, strong Shared Values supported by concrete Strategy and effective Style of management, WBSEDCL is more effective than WBSETCL which lacks in Staff and Style.

The common S among the high scoring Ss in all the 3 organizations is Systems. There is no doubt that for implementation of Strategies devised, sharing of Shared Values, developing the Skills of its Staff, a robust Systems is essential.

If these organizations are able to instill Shared Values among their employees, develop Skilled Staff, formulate appropriate Strategies and implement them through proper Systems, Structure and Style, organizational effectiveness can be ensured. Each of these organizations need to have a re-look at their 7Ss and work on the PMS parameters where they are weak specially in Rewards and Recognition of WBSETCL and WBPDCL, Training and Development of WBSETCL and WBSEDCL, appraisal of WBSETCL and target setting of WBSEDCL and WBPDCL.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

· A single respondent from each provided information on PMS of the organization and enough care was taken in selecting such respondent, expected to be a knowledgeable one, from the HR area in that organization. However, such respondent’s bias, if any, might have influenced his/her response.

· Net profit has been considered as an indicator of effectiveness. Though that is, no doubt, a very important indicator, there are certainly many more indicators of effectiveness.

· Documented data available till 2015-16.

REFERENCES:

1. Ainsworth, M. and Smith, N. (1993), making it Happen: Managing Performance at Work, Prentice Hall, and Sydney.

2. Angle, H. L. and Perry, J. L. (1981), an Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1-14.

3. Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (2007), Performance Management: A Strategic and Integrated Approach to Achieve Success, Jaico Publishing House, New Delhi.

4. Bredrup, H. and Bredrup, R. (1995), Performance Planning to Ensure Business Achievements, in A. Rolstadas (edr.), Performance Management: A Business Process Benchmarking Approach, Chapman and Hall, London.

5. Campbell, J. O. (1977), On the Nature of Organizational Effectiveness, in P.S Goodman and J.M. Pennings (edrs.), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 13-55.

6. Deming, W. E. (1982), Out of the Crisis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

7. Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M. T. and Kiziltas, S. (2005), Prediction of organizational effectiveness in construction companies, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(2), 252-261.

8. Finn, R.H. and Fontaine, P.A. (1983), Performance Appraisal: Some Dynamics and Dilemmas, Public Personnel Management Journal, 13(4), 335-43.

9. Fletcher, C. (1993), Appraisal: Routes to Improved Performance, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

10. Goodman, P.S. and Pennings, J.M. (1980), Critical Issues in Assessing Organizational Effectiveness, in E. E. Lawler, D. A. Nadler and C. Cammann (edrs.), Organizational Assessment: Perspectives on the Measurement of Organizational Behavior and the Quality of Work Life, Wiley, New York, 185-215.

11. Guin, K. (1987), Performance Management: Not Just an Annual Appraisal, Personnel, 65(4).

12. Hartle, F. (1995), Transforming the Performance Management Process, Kogan Page, London.

13. Hewitt Associates (1994), The Impact of Performance Management on Organizational Success: A Study, Hewitt Associates LLC, Illinois.

14. Huber, V. (1983), An Analysis of Performance Appraisal Practices in the Public Sector: A Review and Recommendations, Public Personnel Management, 21(3), 258-67.

15. Kent, B. (2004), Performance Management, Management Books, Cierncester.

16. Lawler, E. E., Mohammed S. A., Gerald, E. and Ledford, J. (1998), Strategies for High Performance Organizations: The CEO Report, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

17. López, S. P., Peón, J. M. M. and Ordás, C. J. V. (2006), Human resource management as a determining factor in organizational learning. Management Learning, 37(2), 215-239.

18. Mabey, C. and Salaman, G. (1995), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford.

19. March, J. G. and Sutton, R. I. (1997), Organizational performance as a dependent variable, Organization Science 8(6), 688-706.

20. Otley, D. (2005), Performance Management: A Framework for Analysis, in A. J. Berry, J. Broadbent and D. Otley (edrs.), Management Control: Theories, Issues and Performance, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

21. Pascale, R. and Athos, A. (1981), the Art of Japanese Management, Penguin Books, London.

22. Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-run Companies, Harper and Row, New York.

23. Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage through People, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

24. Robbins, S. P. (1990), Organization Theory: Structures, Designs, and Applications, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood cliffs, NJ.

25. Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (1995), Personnel Management: HRM in Action (3^rd edn.) Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

26. Waterman, R. Jr., Peters, T. and Phillips, J.R. (1980), Structure Is Not Organization, Business Horizons, 23(3), June, 14-26.

27. www.Fsa.Ulaval.Ca/Html/Fileadmin/Pdf/Ecole_Comptabilite/Publications/2003-04-3.pdf/ [Dissertation on Performance Measurement and Organizational Effectiveness: Bridging The Gap--Jean-François Henri] (last accessed on 02.01.13).

28. www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_91.htm/(last accessed on 02/12/12)

29. www.wbpdcl.co.in (last accessed on 04.07.17)

30. www.wbsedcl.in (last accessed on 04.07.17)

31. www.wbsetcl.in (last accessed on 04.07.17)

Received on 05.07.2017 Modified on 02.08.2017

Asian J. Management; 2017; 8(4):1280-1286.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2017.00194.9