A critical evaluation of performance management and development processes within Otis PLC Introduction The purpose of this assignment is to critically evaluate the Human Resource Development (HRD) aspects of my employer, Otis PLC's, performance management and development process and to suggest ways in which they could be improved. I have chosen this area of Otis' HRD practices to review because, within Otis globally there is an increasing focus on performance outcomes rather than training inputs. In this respect, Otis is reflecting a common trend, particularly among US based organisations, Harrison (1998). This review will be in the light of the organisation's business strategy, key commercial challenges and culture and will compare Otis PLC's practice to a model of best practice. In reviewing best practice I will suggest that performance management is a system of interlinking processes which are carried out by both line managers and Human Resource Management (HRM) / HRD professionals. I will also suggest that in order for the system to be fully effective its components must work in a coherent and integrated fashion.

However, the purpose of this assignment is to consider issues of performance management specifically from an HRD perspective and so I will not review in detail those aspects of performance management which fall outside the HRD function. In the light of this review I will propose appropriate actions to bring the organisation's current practice closer to best practice standards Otis PLC: Organisation, Culture and Key business drivers. Otis PLC is the UK subsidiary of Otis Elevator Company which is itself a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation (UTC). Other significant subsidiaries of UTC include Pratt and Whitney, manufacturers of aircraft engines, and Sikorsky, manufactures of helicopters. Both Otis Elevator and UTC are U. S.

multinationals with their headquarters in Connecticut. An organisation chart is attached in Appendix 1. Otis Elevator is a global organisation and its principal business is the manufacture, installation, maintenance and modernisation of lifts, escalators and moving walkways. Globally Otis Elevator is market leader in its industry and employs 40, 000 people.

The financial performance of the business has been a source of concern for UTC recently. Although Otis Elevator returns significant profits, its Return on Sales is felt, by U. S. stock analysts to be below what could be achieved. Improving this performance is seen as critical to the future stock rating of UTC as the following extract from Lehman Brothers (1999) makes clear, "More importantly, the company (UTC) will host an investor conference focused on growth prospects at Otis on December 2 nd. This meeting will be very important in the minds of investors as earnings growth at Otis is critical to the UTC story going forwards" As a consequence the business has been undergoing significant restructuring and the business context for Otis is one where costs are tightly controlled and efficiency of operations is closely monitored.

As a result, in the UK the company's approach to performance management is changing. In Britain Otis PLC employees approximately 3000 people. As elsewhere, the Otis business model depends on achieving a significant market share of newly installed lifts and escalators, this in turn allows the organisation to achieve economies of scale in the maintenance of customers' equipment. Maintenance is the primary generator of profits, with a target of 50% gross margin, that is direct costs of service, excluding Selling and General Administration expense, should be no more than 50% of the cost of the contract.

Currently the organisation is achieving 40%. Traditionally, purchasers of new equipment would choose to have it maintained by the manufacturer. Increasingly, however, purchasers are using a tendering process to select a maintenance supplier and this is placing downward pressure on maintenance prices. This trend, together with the global requirement to increase profitability has led the organisation in the UK to review its maintenance business with a view to increasing efficiency and profits. A significant restructuring process was announced in July 1999 under the title " Seizing the Offensive." This restructuring is focused on increasing workforce efficiency while improving customer service levels. It includes a declared intention to take a more active stance on the management of performance coupled with increased investment in training and development.

The restructuring included a reassessment of all line managers and sales staff within the maintenance division. The selection process, by means of an assessment centre, was based on a competence model that was developed with support from an external consultant. More details of the competence model are shown in Appendix 2. Armstrong and Baron (1998: 28) identify the importance of ensuring that an organisation's performance management system fits its culture.

To provide some context to my review I will give a short description of the culture of Otis PLC. Schein (1992) cited by Mabey et al (1998) suggests that culture can be considered on three levels; artifacts and creations; values; basic assumptions. I will use this structure to describe the culture of Otis PLC, beginning at the level of basic assumptions. The core belief is that the elevator industry is in some way different from other industries and there is an unquestioning belief, that Otis is the "best" organisation in the industry. This leads to an unwillingness to learn from competitors or to recruit managers from different backgrounds The values of the organisation are typical of a small engineering company but with a strong orientation to problem solving which is, perhaps, a product of the highly reactive nature of its business. Long term planning takes second place to the ability to respond well in a crisis.

Many of the organisation's espoused initiatives are long term in focus but there is a tendency not to persist with them to completion. Almost all senior management appointments are made from within and a background in the industry, together with considerable length of service, is considered essential for promotion. Loyalty and hard work have been valued more than actual achievement and, historically, few concerted attempts have been made to manage performance. Finally, at the level of artifacts, the organisation appears relatively sophisticated and prosperous. It possesses many of the features of a medium sized PLC, with a headquarters building, a glossy company magazine and the full range of policies, practices and management procedures, including a mission statement which places the customer above all else. Models of best practice in performance management and development.

The purpose of this part of the assignment is to explain what performance management is and to establish a model against which to compare the practices of Otis PLC. In making my review of the literature on performance management, I have found two closely related issues that are particularly significant to the HRD function. The first is that there is a tension between two aspects of performance management, the desire to measure and control results and the need to develop employees' capability to achieve results. The second is the significant practical difficulty of establishing meaningful criteria that can both evaluate development needs and measure performance. I will explore these issues more fully below.

Establishing a definition of performance management. There are several definitions of performance management available, Armstrong and Baron (1998: 50), for example, list eight. Commenting on the definitions, they note that there are frequent references to the need to align individual and organisational objectives but only one reference to development. From my own reading Taylor (1998: 166) and Hendry et al (1997) cited by Walton (1999: 199) both stress the systemic nature of the process while Harrison (1997) citing Lockett (1992: 14) (who is included in Armstrong and Baron's review) emphasises the link to organisational strategy. The definition that I find most useful is by Armstrong and Baron (1998: 7) "a strategic and integrated approach to delivering sustained success to organisations by improving the performance of the people who work in them and by developing the capabilities of teams and individual contributors." They put particular emphasis on four parts of their definition, Firstly the strategic nature of the process, i.

e. its alignment with the strategy of he organisation and its ability to respond to changes in that strategy. Secondly, they emphasise the degree of integration both with other functions, with the organisation's HRM process and, ideally, with the needs of individual employees. Thirdly, they stress its concern with performance improvement and finally they identify its concern with development, which they state is "perhaps the most important function of performance management." Inherent tensions in performance management systems.

Armstrong and Baron include both improvement of current performance and development of the individual within their definition. Other writers have also identified this dual role but express concern about potential tensions between the two aspects. Although writing specifically about appraisal processes, McGregor (1957) cited by Newton and Findlay (1996: 129) identified the tensions that are inherent in performance management. "The modern emphasis on the manager as a leader who strives to help his subordinates achieve both his own and the company's objectives is hardly consistent with the judicial role demanded by most appraisal plans." Harrison (1997: 224) also notes the tension between measuring and controlling outputs and providing the development of capabilities (inputs) to achieve them. She cites (p 232) Crabb's (1990) case study of tensions within the performance management system of British Rail.

Crabb found that, although his overall impression of the system was favourable, "many managers were going through the motions and not following through on the results of the reviews." He suggested that there was probably too great a tension between those objectives of the appraisal scheme that were to do with controlling performance against targets and those to do with developing people." Walton (1999: 198) and Bevan and Thompson (1991: 39), make similar points. Harrison (1997: 234) cites Harris' (1995) study into Haringey Council's housing department's and Fowler's (1995) study of performance management systems in the National Health Service as examples of performance management systems that integrate the drives for control and development. It is worth noting that both examples are from not for profit organisations where the pressure for achievement of measurable results, while still significant, may be less strongly felt. Stiles et al (1997: 57) found that organisations were adopting harder edged performance management processes and that employees had deep concerns about the accuracy and fairness of performance management processes. This is very much the situation that Otis finds itself in. The difficulty of establishing meaningful measurement criteria.

As noted above there are two, potentially conflicting aspects of performance management, development of future performance and control of existing performance and this division is reflected in criteria for measurement. Firstly, in terms of development, there is the issue of how the individual does their job, i. e. an evaluation of their input to it.

This can be contrasted with the results they achieve, their output, which is related to control of performance. In the case of both sets of measures there are issues of validity and reliability to be considered. Armstrong and Baron (1998: 272) and Gammie (1995: 55) both review the question of measuring inputs. Gammie identifies the tendency for measurements to focus on outputs, and suggests (p 57) that individual performance should be measured at two levels, firstly what is achieved within their job and secondly against defined standards of team working or collaboration. Armstrong and Baron (1998: 272) suggest that a competency model can provide the framework for these measures. They found (p 9) that 31% of organisations had introduced some form of competence assessment into their performance management process.

Issues of validity in this area are concerned with identifying relevant and appropriate standards against which to assess. Harrison (1997: 233) comments that the increasing popularity of competency based frameworks must be treated with caution in this context with the risk that too great a focus can be placed on the defined competencies at the expense of more generalised abilities to survive in an unpredictable future. She cites Healy (1995) and Sparrow (1996) as having expressed similar concerns. There is an extensive body of literature on the subject of developing an effective competence model but space does not permit me to review it here.

Establishing reliability of behavioural assessment requires the development of a common understanding of what the measures mean and training in how to accurately assess them. One possible route forward is the establishment of a development centre with trained staff carrying out this role. Another is the introduction of 360-degree appraisal where the large number of raters offers a greater chance of consistency. With regard to output measures, Gammie (1995: 54) highlights the increasingly collaborative nature of work and the difficulties this raises in identifying appropriate individual performance measures.

Walters (1995 a: 16) notes that "performance comprises a portfolio of disparate achievements" and advocates (p 27) applying a basket of measures, to recognise this. Armstrong and Baron (1998: 277) citing Kaplan and Norton (1996) suggest a "personal balanced scorecard" as a possible solution. With regard to the reliability of output measures, Stiles et al (1997: 65) found that employees were disenchanted in part by "variability and inconsistency in appraisal." Armstrong and Baron (1998: 32) identify significant weaknesses in the operation of performance grading systems, which do not use objective measures. They (p 262) offer a set of criteria for performance measures. These can be summarised as, they must be; related to organisational strategy; relevant to the individuals; precisely stated; focused on measurable outputs and based on sound and available data.

Establishing a comparative model My purpose in this review is to establish a model against which I can compare Otis' practice. Any model of best practice must be able to provide a convincing response to the issues identified above, addressing the tensions between monitoring and developing performance and providing meaningful measures of both inputs and outputs. There are a large number of models of performance management to choose from. Harrison (1997: 224) citing Lockett (1992) sets out seven stages in the performance management cycle from which she identifies four key elements where HRD is particularly relevant. These elements are; setting targets and establishing desired performance levels; appraising and improving performance; ensuring continuous learning and development; giving recognition and rewards. Walters (1995 b: 137) sets out an "idealized model" of performance management where there is a clear linkage between organisational goals; individual and overall measurement and tools to support and evaluate performance.

At a more detailed level, Lawson (1995: 67) adds the need for; a focus on both targets and behaviours; effective administration processes including a system of quality control; and skilled and experienced assessors. Armstrong and Baron (1998: 388) prefer the notion of a system which best fits each organisation's needs rather than that of a universal standard of best practice. However, their definition, (p 8) provides a good starting point with its themes of strategic linkage, integration of different elements, concern for performance improvement and concern for development. Most of the core elements in their definition were reflected in an IDS study (1997) that reviewed practice in 4 case study organisations. It found that the performance management systems in the organisations studied contained 6 elements; organisational planning; a method of communicating objectives; a performance plan for each employee; regular reviews during the year leading up to a formal annual review; a performance rating on which pay decisions could be based and a discussion of longer term development needs.

This model seems to embody the key points of the models I reviewed and for this reason I will use it as the basis of my comparison. In addition to the six key points I will review how well Otis' practices are able to deal with the issues of the tensions between monitoring and developing performance and providing meaningful measures of both inputs and outputs. Evaluation of the current performance management and development practices of Otis PLC Overview of the HRD strategy I will start my review by providing some general information about HRD strategy and practice at Otis PLC. The organisation does not have a written HRD strategy but in Otis globally the development of all employees is seen to be of critical importance.

The organisation has launched a number of initiatives in this area in recent years. These include a centrally managed curriculum of business education programs, a group of corporate university programs and the recently introduced UTC Scholar program, which provides funding, time off and financial rewards to those pursuing academic study of any subject at diploma or degree level. Otis PLC makes a significant investment in training its employees, on average each field employee received five days training in 1999. Otis PLC classifies its employees into two groups, field and staff. Field employees, those installing and maintaining equipment on customers's ites, are the majority. Performance management and development for field employees is conducted under the progression scheme, which is a separate system from the general appraisal system that is applied to staff employees.

Where appropriate, I will review each of these systems separately using the headings derived from the IDS study (1997). Organisational Planning The process of organisational planning is typical of a US multinational. Planning starts at the most senior level, MD and direct reports, for which international management set the main objectives. These objectives are predominantly financial, referring to business volume, profit levels, return on sales and asset management amongst others.

Using the terms defined above, these are essentially output measures. There are also functional objectives, which are set by functional departments at World Headquarters level, and values based objectives, which reflect organisational imperatives. Again using the terms set out above these are input measures. Although there is some room for discussion of the appropriateness and achievability of the objectives this is essentially a top down process with each level imposing objectives on the level below. In the case of both output and, more particularly input measures, this raises issues about the validity of the measures. This point is discussed in more detail below.

Method of communicating objectives Once company level objectives have been established they are cascaded to the next level of managers. In the case of line managers, each will be allocated a set of objectives that form part of the overall company plan. It is common for line managers to have only financial objectives. Staff and functional managers, however, have few financial objectives, typically only ones related to managing the cost of their department. Instead they adopt the functional and values based objectives from the company plan and then add their own functional objectives. In the case of measures imposed from above, particularly worldwide initiatives, there are often questions of relevance and appropriateness to the local organisation.

A recent example was the requirement to train all field employees on a particular subject whether or not it was appropriate. In the case of locally adopted objectives, there is no process for co-ordinating them and so opportunities for co-operation between functional departments are missed and one individual's objectives may be in conflict with those of other employees. In addition, the absence of functional objectives for line managers often means that functional initiatives seem irrelevant to them and are less likely to succeed as they lack line support. As functional objectives are often concerned with "inputs" to performance and line objectives are typically about outputs from performance the tension between these two aspects of the system is heightened.

One final issue in this area is that the setting of objectives at the most senior level is often delayed by external factors and consequently individual objectives may not be confirmed until March of the year in which they are to be achieved. This tends to reduce the scope for long term planning of objectives and to reduce their credibility. A performance plan for each employee At the level of individual performance plans and measurement a distinction can be made between staff and field employees. Dealing first with staff employees, at the more senior levels of the organisation, direct reports to the MD and their direct reports, each employee has a performance plan. In addition all line managers and all sales staff will have a set of performance measures.

As discussed above these will be almost entirely financial. Beyond this group, individual performance plans typically do not exist. Once again the distinction between input and output measures can be clearly seen. Measures related to the financial performance of the organisation are tracked and reported on, although it should be noted that there are considerable concerns over the integrity of these data. Measures not directly related to financial performance, e. g.

those concerned with the development of individual performance or improvement of processes are not tracked and consequently receive less attention. This perhaps can be seen most clearly in the case of functional managers who have non-financial objectives. Their performance is more likely to be assessed on how well they reacted to crises that arose during the year rather than how well they completed their objectives. This contrasts with their achievement of their financial objective, i. e. cost management of their function, which is always assessed.

Turning now to field employees, the performance of each field employee is measured throughout the year. This is unsurprising, as the activity of field employees is a primary influence on the financial performance of the business. However, although standards of performance for exist for field employees and performance against the standard is monitored, no individual performance plans are established. The reasons for this are considered in the section on performance review. Performance Review cycle The IDS study (1997) found that in best practice organisations there were regular reviews of performance during the year leading up to a formal annual review. In Otis this is not the case for staff or field employees.

In reviewing practice within Otis in detail it is necessary to distinguish between review of inputs and outputs and also the practice in respect of staff and field employees. Looking first at output measures, for staff employees with specific output targets (usually line managers and sales staff) performance against target is reviewed on an ongoing basis. These reviews are informal and unstructured and typically focus on remedial actions to achieve target. For these staff and also for those without specific output targets, review of input measures is an annual event conducted through a traditional appraisal scheme.

Performance is reviewed both against objectives and also in terms of a series of behavioural competencies. A copy of the rating form is attached as Appendix 3. As can be seen these competencies are generic in nature and there is no behaviourally anchored rating scale to ensure consistency in ratings. In the original design of the appraisal scheme access to training and development was obtained by completing a training need form attached to the appraisal document. The experience of most employees was that training needs identified through this means were often not met and consequently the process lost credibility. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many staff employees, perhaps a majority, now do not have an annual appraisal and have no form of performance feedback during the year.

There is one exception to this pattern; sales managers in new equipment sales follow a structured review process with their staff. Reviews are held on one day each month. Progress against target and remedial actions are discussed during the morning. During the afternoon the sales manager and sales person undertake a joint customer visit after which the sales managers coaches the sales person on ways to improve his / her effectiveness.

The sales managers have also developed measurement of competence, i. e. inputs, for their staff and routinely suggest development activities for them. The final piece in this approach is that the sales managers train their staff in professional sales practices.

This model has produced significant improvements in measured sales performance in this area. In the case of field employees, there is a mechanism for on going review of performance, "one to one" reviews. The policy is that such reviews should be held by the first line manager with the individual and that a training needs analysis should be completed. In practice these reviews are not taking place, which reflects a general unwillingness on the part of first line managers to actively manage performance.

Reviews of performance do occur where an employee is seeking promotion to the next level in the grading structure. Entry to each level in the structure is based on achieving a defined level of performance, measured by specific outputs, and of competence which is expressed in terms of technical skills and knowledge. A formal application must be made for upgrading and documentary evidence provided; both of which are considered by a Progression Board who determine whether or not an application will succeed. Where an application does not succeed, specific advice, both in terms of inputs and outputs, will be given as to what the individual must do in order to be successful.

Because of the formal and structured nature of the process, which is the product of trade union involvement, line managers are obliged to undertake reviews in order to provide the evidence required. Performance rating linked to pay awards The linkage between performance rating and pay is not straightforward. For field employees the only link is that with progression. In other respects field employees have a centrally negotiated contract of employment with fixed rates of pay.

Staff employees are on individual contracts of employment, with individual pay rates set within a band determined through a job evaluation scheme. Part of their annual pay review is based on an assessment of their previous years' performance but this rating is determined directly by their manager with no need to refer to their appraisal. In practice the relatively low pay increases of recent years, typically 3%, have meant that the amount of the increase reflecting performance has been limited with the result that managers have tended to give the average increase to most employees. Consequently the credibility of performance related pay has declined. A small group of employees, managers and sales staff, receive specific performance related incentives ranging from 10% of base salary up to 30%. In the case of staff with clear output measures the incentives are directly connected to achievement of target.

Discussion of development needs As noted above, and with the exception of new equipment sales staff, there are relatively few opportunities for staff to discuss development needs. It is more likely that where discussions do occur they will be focused on output rather than development issues. This, perhaps, reflects the culture of the organisation, which is short term, and reactive in nature and disinclined to undertake longer term planning. Conclusions and recommendations for future performance management and development practice. From my review I have drawn a number of conclusions.

Firstly, Otis' approach to performance management has significant shortcomings. It is largely focused on the measurement and monitoring of output and gives little attention to questions of development. It must also be noted that despite the large amount of management data that is collected relatively little use is made of it to improve performance. Secondly, the planned shift to a greater focus on performance management is likely to have a negative effect on employee morale. This is supported by the findings of Stiles et al (1997) and there is already some anecdotal evidence in Otis that this is happening. Specifically, the lack of attention that has been paid to development issues in the past will have, to some extent, been compensated for by the absence of active management of performance.

By becoming more active in performance management the organisation is changing the rules of the game. I will return to this point in my recommendations. Thirdly, the established systems for performance management and development are largely not being used. The two cases where the systems are being used are interesting in that they give an insight into this issue. In the case of field employees there is a requirement to use the system which is enforced as part of a collective agreement with a trade union. Put in another way there is an external discipline that leads to compliance.

In the second case, the managers in new equipment sales are using a model that is close to the IDS standard. This model was generated by them (with external consulting support), is designed to meet the specific needs of their business and has contributed to improved results. Put in another way their use of performance management is instrumental, they have adopted it because it is effective in improving their business rather than because it was an imposed "best practice." I will return to this point in my recommendations. Recommendations Using my review and conclusions as a basis, and reflecting on developments in the organisation, I would make four recommendations for performance management and development within Otis PLC. 1. Increased focus on development At present the organisation's focus is very much on performance control.

The example of the sales management process in new equipment demonstrates that an approach focused equally on development is likely to produce significant performance improvement. The competence model that was adopted during the recent restructuring process provides a framework for evaluating inputs and providing developmental feedback. Examples of the behaviourally anchored rating scales developed from the model are shown in Appendix 2. 2. Integration of different system elements The two aspects of performance management, development and control are not managed in an integrated way. By developing a single, integrated process that addressed both issues this problem could be overcome.

The sales management process within new equipment is a good model of this. In addition, this process should be integrated with the selection, training and reward processes again using the competence model as a basis. 3. Greater involvement by line management Historically, managers have seen performance management and other related tasks as the responsibility of HR. The recent restructure placed significant responsibility on first line managers for the development of their teams.

For the first time they are being given training in people management techniques and their administrative workload has been significantly reduced. This is important in the light of the findings of McGovern et al (1997: 14) that attempts to devolve HRM practices were "Undermined by limited resources - particularly for training - and the equation of performance with cost cutting in order to satisfy short term financial control criteria." For the future it is important that line managers should be measured as much on their ability to build and maintain teams as on their achievement of short- term results. This would, however, require a change of approach from more senior managers. 4. Invest time and effort in field employees The division between field and staff employees should be brought to an end with all employees having the benefit of regular reviews of performance and development needs. Improvement in field performance is the greatest potential source of improved results for the organisation.

In addition, the introduction of a focus on improved development opportunities is likely to offset the negative effects of an increase inactive performance management. I believe that by adopting these recommendations the organisation's performance management and development system would come close to meeting Armstrong and Baron's (1998) model of a strategic and integrated approach that effectively addresses both performance management and development issues. Author Year Title Publisher: Location Armstrong, M and Baron, A 1998 Performance Management: The new realities IPD: London Bevan, S and Thompson, M 1991 Performance management at the Cross-roads Personnel Management Vol. 23 No. 11 36 - 39 Crabb, S 1990 "On the right track to high performance" Personnel Management Plus August: 14-15 cited in Harrison, R, 1997, Employee Development IPD: London Fowler, A 1995 How to decide on training methods, People Management Vol. 1 No.

25 36-37 cited in Harrison, R, 1997, Employee Development IPD: London Gammie, A 1995 Developing individual performance measures in Walters M ed. The Performance Management Handbook IPD: London Harris, V 1995 Moving ahead on cultural change People Management Vol. 1 No. 6: 30 -33 cited in Harrison, R, 1997, Employee Development IPD: London Harrison, R 1997 Employee Development IPD: London Harrison, Roy 1998 Higher Performers People Management 17 September 1998 Healy, M 1995 Innovators beware, People Management Vol. 1 No. 6 24-25 cited in Harrison, R, 1997, Employee Development IPD: London Hendry, C, Bradley, P and Perkins, S 1997 Missed Motivator in People Management 15 May 20 -25 Cited in Walton, J 1999 Strategic Human Resource Development Prentice Hall: Harlow IDS 1997 Performance Management: Seeing the bigger picture IDS Study 626 May 1997 Kaplan, R and Norton D 1996 The Balanced Scorecard - translating strategy into action cited in Armstrong, M and Baron, A, 1998, Performance Management: The new realities IPD: London Lawson, P 1995 The appraisal process in Walters M ed.

The Performance Management Handbook IPD: London Lehman Bros. 1999 Analysis of stock growth prospects at UTC 19 November 1999 Lockett, J 1992 Effective Performance Management, London: Kogan Page cited in Harrison, R, 1997, Employee Development IPD: London McGovern, P, Gratton, L, Hope-Hailey, V, Stiles, P and Truss, C 1997 Human resource management on the line Human Resources Management Journal Vol. 7 no. 4 pp 12-29 McGregor, D 1957 An uneasy look at performance appraisal, Harvard Business Review 35: 89 - 94 cited by Newton, T and Findlay, P, 1996, Playing God? The performance of appraisal in Mabey, C, Salman, G and Storey J eds. 1998 Strategic Human Resource Management: A Reader. Sage: London Schein, E 1992 Coming to a new awareness of organisational culture in G Salman et al eds.

Human Resource Strategies, London: Sage cited in Mabey, C, Salman, G and Storey J, 1998, Human Resource Management: A strategic introduction Blackwell: Oxford Sparrow, P 1996 Too good to be true, People Management Vol. 2 No. 24 22-27 cited in Harrison, R, 1997, Employee Development IPD: London Stiles, P, Gratton, L, Truss, C, Hope-Hailey, V and McGovern, P 1997 Performance Management and the Psychological Contract Human Resource Management Journal Vol. 7 No. 1 57 - 66 Taylor, S 1998 Employee Resourcing IPD: London Walters, M 1995 a Developing Organisational Measures, in Walters M ed. The Performance Management Handbook IPD London Walters, M 1995 b Bringing it all together: A case study and some conclusions, in Walters M ed.

The Performance Management Handbook IPD London Walton, J 1999 Strategic Human Resource Development Prentice Hall: Harlow.