HRM is more proactive than Personnel Management. Whereas personnel management is about the maintenance of personnel and administrative systems, HRM is about the forecasting of organizational needs, the continual monitoring and adjustment of personnel systems to meet current and future requirements, and the management of change. Case study on role task Astra Zeneca is a pharmaceutical company; their success is achievable because of their planning which makes task achievement easily.
The organisation ensures the leadership capability, it is also integrate the business culturally it also ensure a diverse cross functional talent base to take this new business forward. It also developed the ability to lead the teams, informing staff about job opportunities, brief the teams about the goals achievement. The organisations also offering about the leadership programmes, local and functional development programmes both internally and externally and builds the talent pool as well. (Human resource management)
Case study on Learning and Development programmes Nestle UK department of learning and development have always been integrated with the business and HR so the focus on the objects should be remain, they bring the e-learning courses for staff, that was introduce by e-learning companies Net and Intel lexis that package contain 850 courses on subjects ranging from finance to management skills. The e-learning courses enters in the structure, the structure went live.
The structure has a ‘@hr’ branding, which aims to emphasis an increased use of technology. It comprises Recruitment@hr, Payroll@hr, Policy@hr, Information&Advice@hr, this includes e-learning. Learning and Development@hr offers its services to employees under 17 different topics heading, under which the relevant e-learning packages are integrated. These kinds of learning programmes are beneficial for the companies and the most important is that it creates coordination towards goal.
Monitoring is also a self explanatory. Monitoring involves the monitoring of employee by their managers to make sure that their tasks are getting done efficiently and takes into consideration how well the employees are able to function and if they are doing something wrong which could lead to any loss for the company in the future . Monitoring ensures that unrealistic expectation are not set by the management or the employees and keeps the record of what has been achieved and what yet to be achieved in the future . Monitoring of employees may be done by regular reporting via various sections in the organisation, effective communication between management and employees in addition to good data collection.
Rewarding great performance
Rewarding employees is perhaps one of the most important parts of performance management. A happy employee is considered productive employee and rewarding employee whose work is exceptional is a key factor in making sure that their level of work does not decline. A good combination of tangible and intangible awards can be organised in order to motivate employees. These awards can be monetary or recognition awards in the form of citations presented by head of department and can be published in company news letter or notice boards.
Everybody likes the fact that they are appreciated for their work. study shows that those employees who are getting rewards for their work are far more motivate to give their best in the future as compared to those employees who are being punishes for being less than satisfactory. There is another way of rewarding employees by team behaviour which requires a process of monitoring employees closely. In order to avoid rewarding individuals who only appear to be team players, it is important to gather information on employees from many different sources. But few employees can find it demoralizing if they can game the system but if employees is satisfy that the administrators conduct the reward system fairly then it frees employees from internal politicking and allow them to focus all of their attention on their job.
Although such close monitoring of employees may appear unfair to some but it is beneficial to employees who work on solving customer’s problems. The Reprographic Business Group of the Xerox Corporation operated a very traditional system of performance appraisal based on rating scale methods. The rating outcomes were linked to pay outcomes. In fact, the results had direct effects on merit pay rises – everyone at Xerox knew that and expected it.
The Xerox system included all the common features of rating scale systems. The appraisal interviews were held annually and conducted by the employee’s immediate supervisor. Accomplishments of the preceding year were recorded and performance levels were judged according to various predefined criteria. The system included some elements of essay appraisal, since appraisers were required to write brief supporting statements for each rated criterion.
The Xerox system also called for a summary rating; an ultimate digit, from a low of 1 (for unsatisfactory) to a high of 5 (exceptional). The summary rating attempted to encapsulate the whole year’s performance in a single number. The significance of that final number was immense. It literally determined the size of the employee’s annual pay rise. The higher the rating, the bigger the rise. For Xerox employees, the thing that really mattered about appraisal was getting the biggest possible final number.
Analysis of ratings over time showed that more than 95 percent of employees were either 3s, 4s or 5s; that is, the spread of ratings heavily favoured the higher end of the scale. Almost every employee, according to the appraisal system, was performing at or above the average. The lower end of the scale, the ratings of “below average” and “unsatisfactory” was very rarely used. The effect of this distortion was that any employee who scored less than a 4 (“exceeds expected performance level”) began to feel like a failure!
The appraisal process became a sort of ratings lottery; the aim of the game was to get the highest possible score and win the jackpot. The process became fixated on that all-important final digit. This situation placed tremendous pressure on appraises and appraisers alike. The appraisers had the unenviable task of deciding the winners from the losers. No wonder most of them preferred to hand out an abundance of overly-generous ratings! Xerox eventually replaced this system with an MBO/essay form of appraisal. They abandoned rating scale methods completely.
That may have been an over-reaction, since the fault did not lie with the method itself so much as with its intimate – and ultimately inflexible linkage – to the annual pay rise. When reward outcomes are so closely linked to the size of a rating on a five point scale, the difference of one point either way can become very important and provocative. The Xerox rating system might have worked if the direct causal relationship between the summary rating and merit pay outcomes had been eliminated or at least softened.
The question of whether appraisal results should be allowed to directly influence decisions about pay increases (and other reward outcomes such as promotion) has been hotly contested. It is still one of the most contentious issues in human resources management. One of the main reasons for separating appraisal results from reward decisions is the belief that a too-close link would create an overly-threatening and potentially punitive system.
Employees, apprehensive at the prospect of being judged, would have the added anxiety of knowing that the result will directly impact their pay packet and career outcomes. Rights when exit from an organisation Few people think negotiating is the best way when you hear the word that “you are no longer required “when you are exiting from any organisation then you must ask for your rights. An employer must always have a good reason to fire his employee and if he does then he requires paying his employee severance pay if his employee gets laid off.
If the way of your exiting an organisation is illegal such as if you employer is firing his employee on the basis of his race, colour, age or religion then employee may appeal against them but if employee were hired at “employment at will” then despite of all this employer can take him out without any reason such as if he want his brother to do your job this is not illegal. But if you are not “employed at will” then you would have more protections
