Answer to the question no.

1
Comparative structure of governance influences employee relation and communication in an
organization in some way. Those are discussed below:
• Multi employer bargaining: Even within the established advanced industrialized world
there is dramatic comparative variation in the coverage of collective bargaining. In the
USA it now languishes at not much above 10% of the workforce, and a little more in
Japan, but in Canada and most particularly the countries EU it is typically much higher.
In many European countries trade union recognition for collective bargaining is required
by law, and collective agreements that are reached through negotiations with unions are
extended, either through enterprises, membership of employees associations or by law, to
other employees ensuring a much wide coverage of collective bargaining than trade union
membership figures alone might suggest. Even within the expended EU, though there is a
considerable variation around the average. Generally, coverage rates have shown a
gradual decline over the last few decades. However, in many cases these decline have
been slight and many countries- for example Slovenia and Denmark- have seen increases
in collective bargaining coverage in recent years. High levels of collective bargaining
coverage are secured principally not by multitudinous enterprise-level agreements but by
multi employer bargaining and agreements (Venon 2006a). multi employer bargaining
may occurs at various levels, according to the centralization of bargaining (sectoral,
multi sectoral), and may be more or less closely coordinated across sectors and extended
by law beyond the employees who pay their dues to employee associations.
• Company and enterprise joint regulation: Company and enterprise level employee
regulations or joint regulations concern local collective bargaining, governance,
procedure and company- or enterprise level collective voice. Such company or enterprise
level arrangement is often part of multi level structure of collective bargaining and joint
regulation, particularly within Europe. This multi level structure may be more or less
vertically co-ordinate or articulated. In Northern Europe there is often a formal hierarchy
of collective bargaining or joint regulation, with collective agreements at multi sector or
sectoral level explicitly defining the role of collective bargaining or joint regulation at the
lower company or enterprise level. The union’s movement of many countries has lost
members over the last decades, and in some countries the union movement is struggling
to come to terms with the modern economy. The decline of the traditional areas of union
strength is primary industries and giant manufacturing plants, the unions failure to deal
effectively with internationalization and with the development of flexible working, the
government and employer strength have all led to reduction in union membership and
influence.
• Work councils: Although the term is sometimes used rather loosely, particularly in the
Anglo-Saxon world, in a strict sense work councils are representative bodies of
 employees which have a statutory basis as opposed to staff councils or joint consultative
committees established autonomously by employees. These independent employee
bodies, which may exist at several levels of the organization (such as plant or enterprise
level, central level) have certain rights mandated by law, rather than roles prescribed by
particular employers. As is the case in the Nordic countries, work councils or work place
clubs are often formally and explicitly for the local representatives of unions only
(Berggren 1994). Sometimes, however they exist alongside and are formally independent
from union channels, as is the case in Germany, for example, but even here they have in
practice a very close relationship with local union representatives and broader union
structures.
• Board level employee representation: Some public sector organizations in most
countries feature employee directors on their main boards. A degree of employee board
representation also occurs, however, in the private sector in northern Europe, and most
strikingly in the Nordic countries (Jackson 2005). Where present statutory provision for
employee representation on boards or usually provides that between one third and a half
of the board are to be employee representation is less frequent in smaller organizations,
and indeed the smallest-of fewer than say, 25 to 50 employees- are often excluded under
the terms of the legislation. However, although small organization and their medium
sized counterparts together constitute the vast bulk of companies, they almost always
employ a minority of employees. Board level employee representation is near ubiquitous
in the larger organizations of Sweden, Norway and Finland, and in the organizations
employing the vast bulk of employees in these countries (Hagen 2010). Such worker
directors have the same rights to information and to scrutiny of the executive as other
board members.
• Empty national structures of joint regulation: Structure of joint regulation is rather
empty in many respects in some countries. France provides a prominent example, where
there is very high collective bargaining coverage but where the multi employer
agreements which secure it feature rather little content. In other countries, however, he
arrangements are very clearly significant in practice. Typically as Vernon (2006a) shows,
the higher are national unionization rates, the more and substantial is collective
bargaining that is , the weightier is joint regulation. Of course national or aggregate
unionization rates can be only provide an indication of the general situation in a country –
there is typically significant variation in the significance of joint regulation across
sectors. However, in some European countries – such as Sweden, Finland, Norway,
Denmark, Belgium and Slovenia – it is difficult to find a sector where joint regulation is
not a significant consideration for managers of people. Such cross national variation is
indicated in by people management specialist views about the influence of unions in their
organizations. Later comparative chapters elaborate in detail some of the implications of
national arrangements of joint regulation for other arenas of people management.
• .

Answer to the question no. 2

Recruitment and selection activity into an industrial context, in particular by laying out important
influences of factors such as the role of legislation and collective agreements, or the shape and
behavior of labor markets, now explain the ways in which national culture weaves its influences
on recruitment and selection practices. The devote considerable attention to culture here ,
therefore, but point out that many of the principles discussed can be applied to the other
functional areas such as rewards, training, flexibility and communication.
Interest is the role that culture plays in recruitment and in people’s attraction to and retention in
organizations- has been spurred by two developments:
• The existence of a growing number of multinational corporations headquartered in a
wider range of geographies and
• The internationalization, or ethnic diversification, of many domestic workforces.
Generic recruitment models assume that a number of factors affect an applicant’s motivation to
apply for jobs and their subsequent job choice including recruiters, recruitment sources, and
administrative or HRM practices. Based on assumptions from expectancy theory, this factor
influence:
• The belief that action will lead to a successful outcome (expectancy)
• The belief that success will bring rewards (instrumentality), and
• Desirability of these rewards (valence).
It immediately becomes clear how cultural factors shape both individual behavior and the
(potential) effectiveness or otherwise of specific HRM practices in the area of recruitment.
The international differences in selection practices and the role of national culture in explaining
such differences in desirability and usage. National differences accounted for considerable
variance in selection practices. This suggests that those attempting to implement standardized
worldwide selection practices may face difficulties beyond the known problems of establishing
translation equivalence of test and interview material. Differences across cultures in terms of
factors such as the perceptions of fairness have been linked to the attractiveness or not of specific
features of selection systems. Perceived fairness in selection is considered to have an impact on
a series of important pre-hire outcomes, such as the applicants perceived organizational
attraction, application withdrawal, job acceptance, reapplication behavior and recommending the
employer to other potential applicants. The result shows that the traditional value of respect for
authority influences applicants work attitudes and behaviors in two ways. Uncertainty avoidance
has been linked to the use of the number of interviews involved in a process and values can have
a deep impact on recruitment and selection. Recruitment and hiring practices are also subject to
religious and government guidelines. Most of the hiring and promotion especially in the
government sector is influenced highly by social connectivity, tribal identity and political and
sectarian allegiance. In Algeria, the process of recruitment and selection is a bureaucratic and
administrative formality, and friendship and kinship can take precedence over qualification.
In the final analysis, the many cultural factors are outlined should remained us there can be
fundamental differences in the assumptions that might underpin a selection system.
 Answer to the question no.3
Performance management is not a new concept. But on the whole, the way companies conduct
appraisals has changed massively over the last 100 years.
Performance management is one of the key areas of HRM policy and practice necessary to
implement successful global HRM, as it is the HRM sub-system that links corporate goals with
rewards, improvement of performance and employee development.
Performance management systems in organizations are improving and understanding by Pulakos
and O’Leary over 30 years of extensive researched practice. Various perspectives have been
adopted and these include the individual differences perspective (cognitive, ability, motivation
and personality etc.) and the situational perspective which focuses on facilitators and
independents for performance and might include extrinsic rewards,. The third perspective has
been identified as being the performance regulation one, which deals with the performance
process. Despite the increase in interest, research into performance management has revealed
inconsistent results concerning its effectiveness ( Biron et al 2011). However, as Bach (2000)
points out, performance management and performance appraisal have long been confused, with
the terms often being used interchangeably and this may in part account for some of the
inconsistency over findings. Performance appraisal according to Erdogan (2002) and Fletchce
(2001) is the basic process involving a line manager completing an annual report on a
subordinate’s performance and discussing it with the employee in an appraisal review. Such
approaches were pioneered in the USA, and thus the origins of performance management should
be recognized as culturally embedded in the strongly individualist nature of the US culture
(Pulakos et al 2008). The early approaches were known as ‘merit rating’ system and were
pioneered by Scott and others during the first world war., focused on officer ability. According to
Muchinsky (1997) these efforts led to the acceptance of performance management systems in
government and industry and marked the first large scale use of judgmental assessment. The
approach develop into standardized measures of performance, with Patterson’s graphic rating
scale providing as metric on which to rate a trait or factor, rather than making purely qualitative
judgments. In 1992, Bretz et al reported a major focus in the rhetoric of the practitioner literature
of the day on transforming performance appraisal from an event to a process.
In summary, compared with performance appraisal, performance management is usually seen as
the larger, more holistic and integrated approach. Performance management as an area of HRM
policy and practice is shaped by what Rose (1991) describes as false universalism with
international organizations striving to mimic western best practice. As Brewster (1995) observed,
it seems that a kind of assumed ‘best practice’ system has emerged in relation to performance
management.
Performance management process:
The typical approach to performance management as commonly espoused by western
organization and MNCs. The description makes reference to the main elements of performance,
usually described as planning, managing and reviewing are described below:
The first of the elements of performance management is planning\objective setting, typically
linked to some sort of cascaded strategy or business plan, and concerned with setting individual
or sometimes team objectives for the year ahead in line with corporate goals. This planning
phase of performance management has its theoretical underpinning in goal setting theory, with
the belief that individuals are more likely to achieve something if they have an explicitly
declared goal around it. It also links with expectancy theory in terms of what the employee is
expecting in return for their achievement of the targets set. Objectives are intended to take into
account current corporate objectives and be relevant to the job holder’s role. In some cases to
clarify or support the communication of the business planning process organizations have sought
to use devices such as the European Foundation for Quality management ( EFQM) or a balance
scorecard.
The second element of the performance management process in figure 9.1 is that of the
management\coaching of performance. This is the phase of performance management which is
about making sure the individual is on track during the course of the year and that there are no
surprises in the final end-of-year review. In some organizations there is simply encouragement to
line managers to provide regular informal coaching, in others there are suggested or mandated
interim interviews during the course of the year. The aim of this phase is to check progress
against objectives and also to consider the individual’s long-term development needs. If the
planning phase of performance management relates to theories of goal setting, then the managing
phase is concerned with the role of the line manager in the ongoing motivation of the employee.
Individual may then during the course of a development review, or even a performance review,
receive feedback as to how well they are meeting the behavioral or competency requirements of
their role.
Phase three of the performance management process is concerned with reviewing performance
and the aspects of HRM within an organization which are linked to the outcome of this review.
The review element involves the annual appraisal meeting with the individual and their line
manager considering the extent to which the objectives have been met. Not all performance
management processes give rise to a rating. Where there is a rating scheme this typically
contains three, four or most commonly five levels of rating from not effective to outstanding.
Recent years have seen an increase in the use of guided or forced distribution approaches to
reviewing performance, whereby managers have to allocate prescribed numbers of their direct
reports into certain performance categories. In such cases line managers will produce an initial or
tentative rating of performance. but this will not be shared wih the direct report until after the
calibration meeting. Once a performance rating has been produced, it may be used in support of a
number of other elements of the HRM architecture, particularly reward and talent identification.
In relation to talent identification this may rely on the performance rating alone, or it may seek to
combine this with a potential rating or possibly an amalgamation. For more information around
the challenges facing international organization in terms of rewarding performance. The example
which follows illustrate how even efforts to balance the inputs to a performance management
system can result in unexpected consequences.