This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Human resource management (HRM) is the strategic approach to the management of an organisation's most valued assets which are the people working there. The goal of human resource management is to help an organization to meet strategic goals by managing the employees effectively. Hornby (2000, page332) defines discrimination as "treating one person or group worse/better than another in an unfair way." It is the prejudice or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. It can be a positive behaviour promoting a certain group (affirmative action), or a negative behaviour directed against a certain group (redlining). Discrimination could be direct, indirect or positive. Discrimination could be direct, indirect or positive. Direct discrimination means treating someone less favourably than you would treat others in the same circumstances while indirect discrimination occurs when a requirement or condition is applied equally to all, which has a disproportionate and detrimental effect on one sex or racial group because fewer of that group can comply with it and the requirements cannot be justified in relation to the task to be performed.
For decades, employee revenue has been a apprehension for human resource practitioners and researchers alike. This concern, which is obvious from the large number of studies that exist in the literature, is not surprising given the negative penalty that may stop from employee turnover. While employee turnover can have positive consequences, it is the negative consequences such as the costs associated with employee turnover that have often attracted much of the attention. Costs can be classified into two categories: (1) direct and (2) indirect. Direct costs are basically financial consequences and include the managerial costs of the recruitment and selection of new employees. The indirect consequences of turnover include such things as output and knowledge loss (Cheng and Brown, 1998).
The exit interview is a discussion between a delegate of an organisation and an employee who is leaving the organisation--either voluntarily or involuntarily--or an employee who expresses a desire to leave (Zima, 1983; Goodale, 1982). The exit interview is often measured to be a powerful tool by management, human resource practitioners and researchers to observe and analyse employee turnover (Giacalone and Knouse, 1989; Grensing-Pophal, 1993; Zima 1983). The central purpose for conducting an exit interview is to help identify and correct troubles within the organisation as well as estimate the effectiveness of human resource practices and programs (Jackson, 2002; Giacalone, Elig, Ginexi, and Bright 1995). Troubles or situations that are often identified through the exit interview process are normally linked with job dissatisfaction. Seen as the affective response to the assessment of the job, the relationship between job dissatisfaction and employee turnover is well established; in fact it is one of the most frequently studied psychological variables (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand and Meglino, 1979; Mobley, Horner and Hollingsworth, 1978; Muchinsky and Tuttle, 1979). The general hypothesis is that through exit interviews human resource practitioners can discover what causes employee dissatisfaction, so that changes can be made and employee turnover can be reduced (Giacalone, Knouse and Montagliani, 1997).
The adoption of the balanced scorecard by Tesco served to strengthen and redefine the role of the store' personnel managers. The scorecard highlighted the importance of all employees' contribution to the success of the company, and therefore, the importance of people management issues (Ashton, 2007)
Southern Gardens Citrus, a small Florida juice processor. Since using the Scorecard this firm of 175 people has seen unit costs drop 28%, on-time delivery rise to 99%, and absenteeism lower to 2.4 % (Torrington et al, 2008).
Another Scorecard success story is a small nonprofit opera company in Boston, Massachusetts - the Boston Lyric Opera. In an effort to boost community support this innovative organization recently staged two very successful performance of "Carmen" on the Boston Common. The results wildly exceeded their expectations. The idea for the free performances arose out of a discussion on developing initiatives for their Balanced Scorecard (Torrington et al, 2008).
A case study methodology (Yin, 1994) was adopted to provide an in-depth examination of the case study organisation, the Asia Pacific head office of one of the world's leading professional publishing organisations. Located in Sydney, Australia, its workforce consisted of approximately 700 full-time equivalent employees in five countries. Just over half (approximately 380) of the region's workforce are located in the Sydney office. Qualitative research techniques were chosen to study the usefulness of the exit interview approach vis-a-vis the employee survey to establish their joint usefulness in understanding voluntary employee turnover. As members of the human resources department, the researchers had distinctive opportunities to gain unlimited access to archival evidence. This access included, but was not limited to, personnel records, exit interview transcripts and employee survey results. Participant observation also enabled the researchers to gain a rich, in-depth description of the organisation, its people and the performance of the exit interview program and the employee survey (Schmitt and Klimoski, 1991).
As the study was limited to a single case organisation an expected criticism is that the design renders it incapable of providing generalising conclusions. Thus the findings are suggestive only. Another limitation of the study that needs to be measured when evaluating the findings and implications is that both researchers were members of the case study organisation's human resources department. Whilst ambiguity of all the research participants was confident throughout all stages of the study the fact still remains that the researchers were considered part of the case organisation, and this may have affected the research participants' responses. The interviews assessed the beliefs and expectations of both the terminating employees and of the human resources personnel of the exit interview process and the employee survey process. The interviews also provided insights regarding how participants professed and dealt with both the exit interview and employee survey process. The knowledge and perceptions of both the human resource personnel and terminating employees' formed the basis of the study.
All interviewees indicated that they were convinced that their responses would be treated in confidence and had given honest responses to the survey, and were glad of the opportunity to express their concerns with the organisation, but were skeptical about whether any real or effective changes would be made as a result of the feedback. The mid-level managers were also concerned that they would be held responsible for implementing any changes required, as they felt that they had not had sufficient involvement in developing the plans and were rigid to maximum capacity in doing their 'day jobs'
Pre-employment background checks is the process of compiling criminal, financial and commercial records of an individual. Pre-employment background checks are usually required by employers on candidates seeking jobs that demand trust and security, such as in a financial institution, hospital, school and government departments including law and military. These checks are conducted by the government agencies or private companies. Pre-employment background checks include credit score, criminal history and past employment information.
Pre-employment background checks being time overwhelming process is sometimes skipped in recruitment of employees. To avoid this, services of a background check investigation agency can be gladly hired.Employers use these checks for objectively evaluating candidate's qualifications and finding impending risks in offering employment. These checks also verify precision of candidate's furnished information, employer sanctions or reward claims. Other legislative objectives behind conducting pre-employment checks include: Protection of consumers interests, promoting public awareness and restricting financial crimes. Commonly applied background checks include: Pre-employment drug test, employee background check and workplace drug testing.
Pre-employment drug testing is an important in the recruitment process. This test is an competent method of controlling drug abuse. It helps in treatment of a person and minimising employee turnover, skiving, crime and improving productivity. Employers utilize 5-panel test for discovery of Marijuana, PCP, Amphetamine, Opiates and Cocaine. Some employers use ten-panel drug test. Employee criminal background check is compulsory part of recruitment process. The cost of damage to employer's business can be too high in not conducting this check for every new employee. Employers need to be alert of any past criminal record of employee. Learning about lengthy arrest record of a candidate after offering employment can put employer in an embarrassing position and prove to be big responsibility for the organisation. Employee criminal background check can also reveal history of alcohol and drug abuse and avoid legal issues arising at later stage.
Workplace drug testing normally comprises of dribble drug testing. It is easy and non--invasive form of drug monitoring. Through this test, an employee under influence of drug can be reserved from sensitive task and prevented from frequent accidents. Saliva drug test is a deterrent for employees who consume drug before coming to workplace. By conducting pre-employment background checks you get variety of information regarding candidate. It includes character references, education records, criminal history, personal connections, credit records, performance report from previous employer and many other details.These checks minimize incidences of theft at workplace, protect other employees and customers and buy a piece of mind for employer with knowledge that organization has hired a right employee.
Employers, from the smallest to the largest, understand the twin benefits of hiring the best people and providing a safe and secure workplace, both physically and financially, for their employees, customers, shareholders, and the community in which they control. A key factor is to know as much as you can about the people you want to hire and to know that before hiring them. Hiring a new employee is an important responsibility for any organization. An employer who has performed a thorough pre-employment background viewing on its applicants is more likely to bring into the organization a highly skilled person who will prove to be a great asset. Unfortunately, absent a sufficient pre-employment background screening, that same employer runs the risk of revealing his or her organization to someone who could eventually become the organization's greatest liability.
The guideline should also serve as an educational and practical tool that organizations can use as a supply in understanding the reasons for pre-employment background screening, understanding the legal principles surrounding the issue of pre-employment background screening, and support in developing policies and procedures that will enhance an organization's hiring policy. It has been said that some applicants will only tell you what you want to hear. A good writer and storyteller can invent a good recommence. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) conducted two separate online surveys on resume inaccuracies. In August 2004, SHRM reported that sixty-one percent of the human resource (HR) professionals surveyed said they find inaccuracies in resumes after carrying out background checks. An April 2006 article in the New York Times reports that a study conducted by ResumeDoctor.com, a resume-writing service based in Burlington, Vt., found that 43 percent of the more than 1,100 resumes examined had one or more "important inaccuracies," while 13 percent had two or more. Michael Worthington, the co-founder of Resume Doctor, said the most common transgressions could be found in three areas: education, job titles, and dates of employment.
By thoroughly verifying information given during the employment process, a company can improve the chances they are hiring an individual who has portrayed his or her background, experience, and skills honestly and accurately. Using pre-employment background screening to verify an applicant's history helps employers make decisions based upon facts.
PROVIDING A SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT:
An employer's responsibility to maintain a safe place to work also arises from the legal principles that exist in most states under common law (the body of law imitative primarily from official decisions based on custom and guide, rather than from statutes, codes, or constitutions). These legal principles include:
â€¢ Premises liability (the duty of a property owner to take responsible steps to guard against reasonably probable violence)
â€¢ Respondent superior (an employer's indirect liability for the wrongful acts of an employee committed within the course and extent of employment);
â€¢ Sexual and other forms of harassment barred under discrimination laws (when threats or violence are motivated by a victim's protected status); and
â€¢ A collection of negligence theories, including careless hiring (the failure to properly screen job applicants, particularly for sensitive positions involving a
high degree of interaction with the public); negligent supervision (the failure to supervise employees and to discipline violators of anti-violence rules), and negligent retention (the failure to terminate employees who have engaged in behaviour in violation of company policies). In the April, 2002 edition of Occupational Health and Safety magazine, attorney-at-law and author of The Safe Hiring Manual, Lester S. Rosen points out that the statistics on the penalty of even one bad hire are momentous. Industry statistics suggest the cost of even one bad hiring decision can exceed $100,000, taking into account the time spent recruiting, hiring, and training, and the amount of time the job is left undone or done badly by an untrained applicant. In addition, the financial cost from theft, violence, etc. can be massive. Additionally, there are other costs that are hard to measure, such as the harm to employee confidence or the entity's reputation.
LEGAL ISSUE AND CONSIDERATIONS:
Employers who decide to realize a background screening process for job applicants, or connect the services of a third party to do it for them, will immediately discover an range of challenging and involved statutes, laws, and regulations. In the United States, legal issues and considerations exist at the federal, state, and local levels. U.S. employers who also operate internationally must further observe with the laws of the countries in which they operate or from which they obtain information, and also the international conventions and treaties that regulate them and their activities. At the same time, employers should be aware that the legal scenery that affects pre-employment background screening practices is regularly changing. As such, it is urgent that the employer and those they hire to assist them remain aware and knowledgeable of the evolving law in all of the jurisdictions in which they operate. The following examines several of the considerable legal concepts and U.S. statutes confronting employers conducting pre-employment background screening.
1- Asda guilty of multiple safety offences
Supermarket giant Asda has been fined £22,000 after a worker was buried under a mound of chilled chicken and another suffered an electric shock. Both incidents happened at the Kingswood store in Hull in 2003, the city's magistrates heard. One worker was pinned to the floor when a trolley overloaded with chilled chickens fell on her and another suffered an electric shock cleaning a cabinet. Asda pleaded guilty to four health and safety offences. The first incident happened in March 2003 when a worker tried to demonstrate to a supervisor that the trolley carrying the frozen birds was unstable. The trolley had previously been taken out of use because it was defective, but then used again without any repairs having been carried out, the court was told. In the second incident four months later a female worker who had not been trained in cleaning display cabinets or switching them off before wiping them down with a damp cloth suffered an electric shock. The company was fined £10,000 for that incident and £6,000 for the chicken trolley accident. It was also fined £3,000 for two further counts of failing to maintain the trolley and another of failing to carry out a risk assessment for moving the chickens around. Asda's US parent company, Wal-Mart - the world's largest retailer - has attracted controversy for a string of safety and employment offences at its stores in Canada (Risks 198) and the USA and for safety standards at its suppliers in developing countries (Risks 214).
2-OSHA seeks fines against 2 Birmingham companies
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Leeds, Ala.-based M&B Metal Products Co. and its subcontractor, Oak Mountain Construction Co., have been hit with more than $166,900 in penalties. The fines, proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, are related to a roof collapse at M&B in May. In a statement Friday, OSHA inspectors cited M&B for 42 serious safety and health violations. M&B is one of the nation's largest makers of clothes hangers. Oak Mountain was cited for two safety violations, including exposing employees to falling hazards. The construction company was performing repairs on M&B's roof when it caved in.The agency said the companies have 15 working days to contest the citation and penalties
3-Fatal fall from elevated forklift platform leads to over $50,000 in proposed penalties
OSHA has cited a Georgia agricultural services company for exposing workers to fall hazards at the company's bulk fertilizer warehouse. The agency is proposing penalties totaling $51,250.Â "Falls are preventable," said John Deifer, OSHA's Savannah area director. "This tragic accident would not have occurred if management had used safety equipment readily available." OSHA began an investigation on August 26 after being notified that a worker had died from injuries sustained in a fall from an elevated forklift platform. According to the OSHA investigative report, the employee was struck by a piece of electrical conduit as it was being removed from overhead beams, causing him to lose his balance and fall eight feet to the floor below. The company received one willful citation, with a proposed penalty of $49,000, for failing to provide standard guardrails on the pallet or fall arrest equipment for the employee. A "safety cage" equipped with standard guardrails was available in the warehouse. OSHA issues a willful citation when an employer has shown an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and regulations.OSHA also issued two serious citations unrelated to the fatal accident, with total proposed penalties of $2,250, for failing to have a "lockout-tagout" program that would prevent workers from being caught in or struck by energized equipment during repair or maintenance, and for operating a forklift with a defective safety signal. The company has 15 working days to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
4-FATAL ACCIDENT RESULTS IN $80,150 FINE FOR EUFAULA PULPWOOD COMPANY
GEORGETOWN, Ga. -- The U.S. Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration today cited Eufaula Pulpwood Company, Inc. and proposed penalties totaling $80,150 following a fatal accident at a Georgetown, Ga., job site. OSHA began an inspection in response to an accident on April 2 which resulted in the death of an employee who was pulled into the rollers of a chipper machine and crushed. The chipper was turned on while the worker was inside the feed-in section of the machine replacing its chains.During the inspection, OSHA found that company officials had received training from a forestry association about lockout/tagout procedures which require that a machine be de-energized during maintenance and repair. Additional training on safe operation and maintenance of the chipper, including locking out the machine during maintenance, was provided by a manufacturer's representative. OSHA cited the company for one alleged willful violation of "lockout/tagout" standards and proposed a $49,000 penalty. A willful violation is one committed with an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
This employer received extensive training on lockout/tagout requirements," said Teresa Harrison, OSHA's Savannah area director. "Additionally, numerous warning signs warned of the danger of not locking out the machine. Following all the safety precautions would have prevented this tragic accident." The remaining $31,150 penalty was proposed for nine serious safety violations, including failing to provide equipment for eye and face protection; not developing a lockout/tagout program; failing to follow the manufacturer's maintenance instructions; not providing proper railing on the machine platform; failing to develop and implement a hazard communication program, and not providing employees job hazard training or training in first aid and CPR. A serious violation is one in which there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result and that the employer knew or should have known of the hazard. Eufaula Pulpwood, which employs 80 workers, has 15 working days to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
5-UK giant BP faces flak over £12m safety fine deal
UK headquartered multinational British Petroleum (BP) is facing union criticism abroad after receiving the USA's largest ever workplace safety fine, over US$21m (£12m), in a secret deal with safety authorities. The settlement agreement between US safety watchdog OSHA and BP resulted from an OSHA inspection of the BP Texas City oil refinery after the 23 March explosion and fire which killed 15 and injured 170 (Risks221). Last month, an official report into the blast called on BP's London-based global board of directors to institute an urgent, independent enquiry into the company's failing safety culture (Risks 220). US steelworkers' union USW welcomed the US$21,361,500 (£12.1m) OSHA penalty but said it was wrong the matter was settled behind closed doors between the company and OSHA before any safety citations were issued. USW president Leo W Gerard said the "settlement should have happened after a citation, not before," the more usual procedure which allows workers and the public to scrutinize the alleged safety offences. Where a company contests a citation, workers and their union have a right to participate in the process. In the BP case, the settlement talks took place in private and the union was excluded. "We will never know what OSHA traded away to get the settlement," said Gerard. "The families of the victims, workers in the plant, and the surrounding community deserve to know all the problems OSHA uncovered. And the workers who face those hazards every day on the job should have had a voice in the settlement talks."Gary Beevers, director of the USW's Region 6, said: "Penalties are supposed to hurt, and this one represents less than half a day of BP's corporate income. It doesn't even cover what BP saved by not making the safety improvements that would have prevented the March 23 explosion."
Mobil's U.S, Marketing and Refining Division, was dead last in their industry profitability in 1993. To address this "burning platform," they introduced a new strategy and divided their monolithic organization into 18 different business units. The balanced scorecard was used to convey the strategy to these new business units. Each business unit built its own balanced scorecard that was cascaded from the corporate balanced scorecard. Within two years, Mobil had moved from last in their industry to first. They maintained that position for five consecutive years (www.information-management.com).
For many years the Product Company had been endeavouring to spread profitability awareness throughout the organization. Capital turnover was satisfactory, and production costs had been squeezed down. Selling efforts were focused on the most profitable products.
But there was a hitch. The factory was extremely reluctant to modernize its technology, and sales gave higher priority than ever to existing customers. The reason was their concern with profitability. Certainly the Product Company was anxious not to spend too much on uncertain projects for the future. But the manager director realized that the company would be in trouble if something happened to the existing plant and equipment or to existing customers.
The managing director brought up this subject with the financial vice-president, who agreed that financial contract at the company tended to be short sighted. Bet there was a way to add other considerations beside profitability awareness, and to emphasize a balance between profits today and preparedness for tomorrow. The method, referred to as the balanced scorecard, meant that employees would share the vision of the board of directors. (Olve et al, 1999)
Sears, Roebuck and Co's recent transformation stands in stark contrast to this anecdote and shows what companies can achieve when they do align HR with the larger organization's strategy. After struggling with lack of focus and losses in the billions in the early 1990s, Sears completely overhauled its strategy implementation process. Led by Arthur Martinez, a senior management team incorporated the full range of performance drivers into the process, from the employee through financial performance. Then, they articulated a new, inspiring vision: For Sears to be a compelling place for investors, they said, the company must first become a compelling place to shop. For it to be a compelling place to shop, it must become a compelling place to work.
Sears then designed a way to manage this strategy with a measurement system that reflected this vision in all its richness. Specifically, the team developed objective measures for each of the three "compelling". For example, "support for ideas and innovation" helped establish Sears as a compelling place to work". Similarly, by focusing on being a "fun place to shop", Sears became a more compelling place to shop". The team extended this approach further by developing an associated series of required employee competencies and identifying behavioural objectives for each o the "3-Cs" at several levels through the organization. These competencies then became the foundation on which the firm built its job design, recruiting, selection, performance management, compensation, and promotion activities. The result was a significant financial turnaround that reflected not only a "strategic" influence for HR but one that could be measured directly. (Becker et al 2001)
HR is being the center of debate for most of businesses that what is the contribution of HR toward the development of an organization, business or any particular sector of business where HR practices is being applied. In general, to look at what is the effect of HR practices, when and where it has been applied in business. It is really important to identify what HR practices are important and what HR practices are relatively less important.
Over the last decade there has been wide spread discussion about the concept of human resource management .The term every day use has been a replacement for personnel management ,but its meaning and significance have been the subject of wider academic debate.
It is very hard to justify that specific bundle or set of HR practices are universally used by organization or business and by applying these practices the performance will be improved or certain goals set by the organization will be achieved. Measuring a particular practice is a key that will identify the relative importance of practice but again certain factors effects the measurability of practice and in turn its identification that how much a practice is important or less important in a business
In last few decades efforts have been based on the best practices perspective and have focused on identifying bundles or configurations of 'High Performance Work Practices' and try to establish how these are related to firm performance through the use of quantitative techniques; the so-called 'universalist' approach (Pfeffer, 1994).
Braton and Gold(2007) define Performance management refers to the set of interconnected practices which are designed to ensure that a person's overall capabilities and potential are appraised ,so that relevant goals can be set for work and development and through assessment ,data on work behavior and performance can be collected and reviewed.
Braton and Gold(2007) define performance appraisal is a process that provides an analysis of a persons overall capabilities and potential ,allowing informed decisions to b made particular purposes.
Cornelius (2001) describes the relationship between performance and rewards as 'rewarding for performance is concerned with rewarding those who have made a contribution to take the business forward and, conversely, not rewarding those who have not done so. Therefore reward management is managing the reward that employees receive so that they can see a direct relationship between rewards and effort; in fact it is managing performance through reward.'
360-degree feedback is all the rage in companies big and small. But it is frequently bureaucratic, politically charged, and agonizing.The good news is that by understanding four paradoxes inherent to peer appraisal, managers can take some of the pain out of the process-and get better results in.
Time and money are needed to construct and administer valid and reliable performance appraisal instruments. When an organisation attempts to do out standing jobs and incurs considerable expense, it desires to express these costs by using the instrument in several jobs and at more than one organisational level.
There is however a tendency to associate feed back with criticism even though most people do their work well most of the time ( Swinburne 2001) .One suggestion is that employees may not have realistic expectations about appraisal and perhaps need training on how to use feedback and take action (Cook and Crossman 2004 ). Another approach is to widen the sources of feed back. Ketty (1997) argued that there has been a growth in the process of multisource feedback, during which individuals receive feedback from different resources, including peers, subordinate staff, customers and themselves. Where feedback is received from all around a job this is referred as 360 degree appraisal or feedback. The growth in such approaches is based on the view that feedback from different sources allows for more balance and objectivity than does the single view of a line manager.
One false assumption in most performance appraisal instruments is that results achieved are almost exclusively the product of a person's individual effort. Appraisal instruments that are used to dispense rewards and make recommendations on improving performance should identify those things over which an individual has control and can change .
Organisations much prefer inexpensive performance appraisal instruments to more expensive ones. Performance appraisal is a peripheral matter in many organisations and costs can be reduced there without noticeable effects. Behaviourally based performance appraisals make important distinctions between behaviour, performance and effectiveness.
Most managers are still not accustomed to giving in-depth, constructive feedback. But by learning how to give feedback better-constructively, specifically, and in a timely mannerand by encouraging others to follow suit, managers themselves become the key ingredient in the peer appraisal process. My findings also suggest that managers
and organizations don't spend enough time asking themselves and conveying to employees why peer appraisal is being used. The potential benefits may seem obvious at first, but when need for improved links; the effects of the Paradox of Group Performance may be stemmed.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS :
Whilst the conclusion could be drawn that employee surveys provide more valid data to aid in understanding and managing the process of employee revenue due to their large-scale responses and secrecy when compared to exit interviews, the usefulness of the survey depends on the responsiveness of the organisation to any issues identified. Employee surveys can raise expectations that issues identified will be addressed thus slow or limited responses may mean that the issues are no longer applicable to the employees or they may be exacerbated by frustration with the ineffectuality of the process, leading in itself to employee turnover. It is therefore essential to manage the time interval between survey administration and the development of action plans. An effective communication plan for both employees and line managers is decisive to the success of overall employee survey administration as without commitment to act on results the survey is rendered somewhat useless.
Even though the underutilisation of information acquired from the exit interview process placed a real question mark over the effectiveness of the process at the case organisation, its usefulness lies essentially with the validity of the information attained. If employees do not give accurate information in the exit interview, even if the information is fully utilised, attempts to reduce employee turnover based on the information attained will be rather useless. The fact that responses given at exit interview were less unenthusiastic towards the organisation than those given at the followup interviews suggests that the information provided by departing employees is less valid. It is therefore recommended that human resource departments who choose to use exit interviews consider a more independent method of collecting information from their departing employees. It is suggested that a post-departure interview administered by a neutral third-party where only cumulative information is reported back to the organisation should help reduce the lack of enthusiasm of departing employees in revealing the factual reasons behind their decision to terminate due to a lack of confidence in the confidentially aspect of the exit interview process.
The purpose of appraisal is to provide timely and useful feedback to help individuals improve their performance. Performance management has a control purpose to make decisions about pay, promotion and work responsibility and a development purpose to improve performance ,identify training opportunities and plan action. Performance might be reviewed and appraised using a variety of multisource feedback process ,including self-appraisal and feedback from managers ,peers ,subordinates and others as part of a 360 degree appraisal process. There is only limited evidence of the success of such activities. Cynical attitudes may lead to a low impact of feedback .A key issue here is how people learn to give and receive feedback. Overall performance management and appraisal tend to assume that all employees have an interest in achieving the objectives set or responding to measurements set by the organisation although there is much evidence to suggest that people have many other interests not all of which match the requirements of the organisation