The paper "Making Performance Appraisal a Positive Force in Their Organisations" is a brilliant example of a case study on management. Organizations have stressed the need to increase the use of different performance management tools so that the employee contribution towards the organization can be found. This will facilitate the development of new tools which will help to increase the motivation of employees and help the organization to achieve the goals in a better way. Omega Inc due to lack of proper performance evaluation and measurement tools have seen a decrease in the sale which has affected the motivation level of employees and made consumer doubt the product of the company. The paper thereby looks towards evaluating the manner in which the performance of Omega Inc has been affected and the different directions that the management has to work to improve the business.
This paper evaluates the different options and highlights the best option that the business can choose from different alternatives. The findings suggest that the optimistic model fits the requirements of the organization as it will increase the satisfaction of the employees through extrinsic rewards.
This will help to improve the commitment level of the employees and help to improve the performance of the organization by being able to work on the different areas through which the organization benefits. The use of balanced scorecard will also help Omega Inc to use different parameters pertaining to the different fields like financial, customer, learning & growth which will help to work on the internal process of the company. This will ensure the measurement of the performance of the employee against different metrics which will help to develop the overall appraisal system of the employees.
Using the model will provide Omega Inc to ensure better efficiency and develop the different business opportunities that the model will provide which will translate into both increased consumer confidence and development of the business
Becker, B. E. and Gehart, R. 2006. The Impact of Human Resource Management on Organisational Performance: Progress and Prospects, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (4), pp. 779-801.
Baird, M. 2002. Changes, Dangers, Choice and Voice: Understanding What High Commitment Management Means for Employees and Union, The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (3), pp. 359-375
Brown, C. and Reich, M. 2007. Micro-Macro Linkages in High Performance Employment Systems, Organizational Studies, 18 (5), pp. 765-781.
Brown, T. 2009. Restructuring, Teams and Learning: The Case of a Clothing Company, Studies in Continuing Education, 21 (2), pp. 239-257
Danford, A., Richardson, M., Stewart, P., Tailby, S. and Upchurch, M. 2004. High Performance Work Systems and Workplace Partnership: A Case Study of Aerospace Workers, New Technology, Work and Employment, 19 (1), pp. 14-29.
Edwards, P. and Wright, M. 2000. ‘High Involvement Work Systems and Performance Outcomes, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12 (4), pp. 568-585
Farias, G. 2008. High Performance Work Systems: What We Know and What We Need to Know, Human Resource Planning, 21 (2), pp. 50-55.
Felstead, A. and Gallie, D. 2002. For Better or Worse? Non-Standard Jobs and High Involvement Work Systems, SKOPE Research Paper No. 29, University of Warwick
Forth, J. and Millward, N. 2004. High-Involvement Management and Pay in Britain, Industrial Relations, 43 (1), pp. 98-119.
Fuertes, M. and Sanchez, F. 2003. High-Involvement Practices in Human Resource Management: Concept and Factors that Motivate their Adoption, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (4), pp. 511-529
Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. 2003. Learning as Apprentices in the UK Workplace: Creating and Managing Expansive and Restrictive Participation, Journal of Education and Work, 16 (4), pp. 407-426.
Goddard, J. 2004. A Critical Assessment of the High-Performance Paradigm, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 42 (2), pp. 349-378.
Guest, D. 2002. Human Resource Management, Corporate Performance and Employee Well-Being: Building the Worker into HRM, The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (4), pp. 335-358.
Handel, J. and Gittleman, M. 2004. Is There a Wage Pay-off to Innovative Work Practices?, Industrial Relations, 43 (1), pp. 67-97.
Handel, M. and Levine, D. 2004. The Effects of New Work Practices on Workers, Industrial Relations, 43 (1), pp. 1-43
Harley, B. 2002. Employee Responses to High Performance Work System Practices: An Analysis of the AWIRS95 Data, The Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (3), pp. 418-434.
Harmon, J., Scotti, D. and Behson, S. 2003. Effects of High-Involvement Work Systems on Employee Satisfaction and Service Costs in Veteran Healthcare, Journal of Health Management, 48 (16), pp. 393-418
MacDuffie, J. 2005. Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48 (2), pp. 197-221
Osterman, P. 2005. Skill Training and Work Organisation in American Establishments, Industrial Relations, 34 (2), pp. 125-146
Pil, K.F. and MacDuffie, J.P. 2006. The Adoption of High-Involvement Work Practices, Industrial Relations, 35 (3), pp. 423-455
Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D. and Harley, B. 2000. Employees and High-Performance Work Systems: Testing Inside the Black Box, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38 (4), pp. 501-531.