'Green Valley Megastore Case Study Essay\r'

'Green-Valley Megastores\r\nGreen-Valley Megastores was a part of a large argumentation group having investments in diverse businesses resembling pharmaceuticals, highlife hotels, textile manufacturing and exports, and food moulding. The mega-stores were aimed to adjudge the customers a sincerely supranational obtain experienceâ€a peerless stop destination where entire families could enjoy a sidereal day togetherâ€watching movies, shopping, eating disclose and playing games in an unmatched ambience. This concept of shopping-cum-entertainment had paralleled the gain of shopping malls in India.\r\nToday, the customers who did non prefer to in effect(p) watch movies at the old-fashi stard movie halls had the resource of going into multiplexes which offered more than one movie line of battle at a integrity time, along with the survival of the fittest of spending time at multiple shops or restaurants at the equivalent time within the same complex. This was design ed so that the customer need not travel from place to place in assay of antithetical products †but could have it at one place. With this, the businesses tried to replicate the weekend holiday concept of the West where an entire family could spend a day let on engaging itself in watching movies, shopping and eating surface.\r\nTo further this aim, Green-Valley Megastores had invested in multiplexes with floor spot varying from 20,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet in skin rash locations in different cities. The shop- lay was then leased knocked out(p) to different brandsâ€who would sell their products within the multiplex. Thus, in that respect was a astray variety of products in a single multiplexâ€ranging from dress material (which itself had different varieties of social wear, western wear, leather accessories, sunglasses, fine jewelry, and saris) to shoes, electronics, toys, groceries and foodstuff, etcetera In terms of product offering, these shops with in Green-Valley offered a wide preference to their customers.\r\nNot only did Green-Valley offer the finest brands forthcoming in India, but it also offered a best ambience and service, with the widest choice. A customer could browse through and through the offerings to their hearts content without any pressure of purchasing through serene ambience in the classy glass and marble interiors designed by international architects. There was enough space for them to rest, take a break, have refreshments while shopping and then track again.\r\nStaff at Green-Valley\r\nWhile the shops within apiece Green-Valley put in had its own round, Green-Valley maintained its own rung to take distribute of housekeeping (cleanliness of public space like lobbies, staircases etc.) manage the car park, and provide bail operate.\r\nThe staff at Green-Valley was trained to be unobtrusive; they were supposed to be present and vigilant at all times and respond to a situation customer request on ly when the customer required. They were there to help one make a choice or serve quietly and efficiently. With constant in-depth training, the Green-Valley staff was required to offer service to all customers with a positive attitude, pleasant disposition, and good communication skills\r\n organizational Structure\r\n to separately one store was managed by a store-in-charge who was supported by four managers. The different managers took care of security, housekeeping, function and accounts. The staff strength for security, housekeeping and services varied from store to store found on the requirements. While the housekeeping took care of the general cleanliness of the stores, services discussion section took care of the maintenance of the lifts, electrical equipment, fire-fighting equipment etc. Both the housekeeping department and the services department relied on contractual staff instead of eonian employees. See Figure 1 for the organizational body structure in the following page.\r\nFigure 1 organisational Structure in a typical Green-Valley Megastore.\r\n surgical operation Appraisal for Megastores’ employees\r\n motion judgement for the store employees was carried out on an annual\r\nbasis. Each of the employees were evaluated by their super (refer Figure 1). The store-in-charges of different stores were evaluated by the regional jitneys. The Regional Managers were in turn appraised by the General Manager (Operations) who used to be located at headquarters. The regional managers had targets in terms of business development †acquire new customers for floor space in the mega-stores. They had to extend to the targets in terms of lease rent from the stores in their regions.\r\nFor the store-in-charges the nature of job was more of managing the facility for their customers. Each store had two categories of customers †the tenants and the shoppers. It was the responsibility of the store â€in-charge of a Mega-store to ensure highest quality of service to both the categories.\r\nPerformance Appraisal Process\r\nOnly those employees who had completed a year in the organization were suitable for executing approximation. There was no appraisal for the contractual staff or part-time employees. The appraisal process was carried out for all the eligible employees simultaneously in the February to inch period.\r\nThe appraisal process was initiated by a face-off conducted by the Store-in-charge where the announcement of the appraisal process was made. It was authorization for all eligible employees to attend the meeting. During the meeting the eligible employees were informed individually about the date of his / her operation appraisal.\r\nThe employees are asked to be prepared for any human body of situations or questions during the appraisal. As an important step of their career, employees took the appraisal interview seriously.\r\nStage 1: Self appraisal\r\nThis was the first step in the appraisal process a t Green-Valley, where an employee has to rate himself from 1 †6 where 1 is the lowest and 6 the highest grade. The employee was handed over a form with following five parameters (refer Table A). The parameters were based on the important aspects of his/her responsibility in Green-Valley and had different weights. The employee had to grade himself/ herself on those parameters.\r\nStage 2: perspicacity by Appraisal Committee\r\nThe appraisal interviews were carried out by an Appraisal Committee that was formed for each store. The members in that mission were the Store-in-charge and two HR managers from the headquarters. The committee would carry out interviews of the employees and based on the interviews would give their discernment of performance. On a single day nearly 4-5 employees were appraised.\r\nThe committee would start the interview development the self-assessment as the basis, probing reasons why a particular employee had rated himself 6. In most cases employees us ed to rate themselves on the higher sideâ€typically either 5 or 6. For each of the parameters, the appraisal committee had a set of questions which would examine the employee. For ex angstromle, reliability would be probed with questions like:\r\n1.Where were you when so and so incident took place in the store? 2.If a customer has forgotten her purchases in the lobby †how would you locate the customer to give it endorse to them?\r\nThe appraisal committee would make its own assessment and give marks on the 1 to 6 scale. TableA: Performance Assessment Form\r\nName: _______________________________\r\nStore Location:________________________\r\nAssessment Period:_____________________\r\nS. No.Performance DimensionsWeights\r\n(in %)\r\nWSelf RatingCommittee Rating\r\nRW X R\r\n1.Customer focus20\r\n2.Task focus15\r\n3.Upkeep of uniform and self 15\r\n4.Discipline & Attendance10\r\n5.Honesty & Integrity10\r\n6.Communication10\r\n7.Initiative 10\r\n8.Reliability10\r\nTotal Raw sexual conquest: Total of WxR\r\n100\r\nAdditional achievements by the employee:\r\nComments by the Appraisal Committee:\r\nSignature of the committee members:\r\n nett Score:\r\nSignature of employee:\r\nThe marks were used to settle the grades. The grading was done as per the scheme render in Table B.\r\nTable B: scoring Scheme\r\nMarks cut-offRating\r\n> 5.5Outstanding\r\n5 †5.5Very Good\r\n4.5 †5 Good\r\n4 †4.5Adequate\r\n'