Performance Management System IntroductionThis report is an attempt to analyze the existing performance management system for large financial services organizations (LFSOs) and, based on this information, recommend and implement an appropriate new performance management system.LFSO is an organization that traditionally has a paternalistic culture with low levels of unionisation. The current LFSO performance management system was implemented two years ago by changing the nature of the previous incremental pay scales described as Prerogatives by Lupton and Bowey and has led to the abolition of the annual cost of living increment. This change by LFSO was an attempt to achieve a strategic, integrative and flexible approach to compensation in order to achieve its organizational objectives. Therefore a pluralist approach was reflected with the use of job evaluation structures related to rewards and financial benefits. (Heery, 1996) despite the fact that most paternalistic culture has a unitive approach to performance management systems. Initial research conducted by the organization indicated that goals are not always established and reviews were spasmodic. There was a high degree of resentment between different staff members leading to an unhealthy competitiveness and reluctance to support others. (Kerr, 1995) describe this behavior as “esprit de corps”. This has led to an increase in overall complaints. The BFU was aware of this concern and began a strong employee recruitment campaign, but no data on existing members was available. cost reduction exercise. The reward levels introduced were considered too small to act as a ¡¥motivator¡¦. There was also discussion about the role of the annual assessment interview as there was no consensus on the purpose of these, which were considered an ¡¥inconvenience¡¦. Two years into the program, LSFO is facing the threat of a ¡¥downside¡¦. ¥Bargaining unit¡¦ or possible unionization. Alongside high levels of dissatisfaction from employees and some line managers who have also expressed serious concerns about their role in the process. The system itself is under severe criticism with a large number of appeals, although only very few of these have been upheld. ... half of the document ... information about these decisions. The manager will have a formal quality monitoring procedure in place and adherence to this will form part of the individual and team reward and evaluation procedure. As the BFU has begun to implement a strong recruitment drive among LFSO employees, management and the HR manager should consider a meeting with the union to obtain its perspective on a partnership agreement with the organization . This approach would recognize the possible impact BFU could have on the new system and demonstrate a “goodwill” gesture from the management team. It would also address the issue that collective representation can help achieve important business goals, including good communication. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that an effective performance management system ensures that both managers and employees understand each other's expectations and how these are incorporated into the company strategy and how these impact their context, their roles, behaviors, relationships and interactions, rewards and the future. Bibliography Books Beardwell, I. and Holden, L. (2001) Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Approach 3rd ed.