Part A

1. Bottom-Up Approach
The initial priority, and probably the biggest challenge, was changing the organizational culture. So in early 2006, a series of engagement
workshops were launched, running two workshops a month, for all employees. These workshops featured The Manufacturing Game®, which
was developed by DuPont as a tool to facilitate organization change.
‘The Manufacturing Game was an excellent way of engaging our workforce in the change process,’ explains Atkinson. ‘It demonstrated the
complexities of running our assets, how the decisions and actions in one area impacted on other departments, the value of cross-functional
working and the importance of eliminating thousands of seemingly insignificant defects from our operation.’ During the workshops the
participants discovered for themselves why there was a need for change and heard directly from Atkinson her vision for the site.
Towards the end of each workshop small cross-functional ‘Action Teams’ were formed, whose purpose was to convert the discussions into
concrete actions to eliminate defects from equipment and work practices. Since the start of the process, over 200 action teams have been
formed.
This approach encouraged a sense of personal responsibility for making the changes and fostered ownership and pride in the new standards
being implemented. These three components – responsibility, ownership and pride are critical to achieving cultural change in any
organization. Many of the teams successfully tackled repetitive problems, which delivered improved availability, cost reductions and
improved health and safety performance. In addition, the improvements released manpower that had previously been taken up with repairing
equipment, which could be redirected to focus on other improvements.
As an example one action team set about improving boiler availability by targeting coal mill feeder issues. One of the major causes of feeder
failures was the unreliability of the chain tensioning unit. The team came up with an innovative re-design of the tensioning unit that
addressed the problem and as a result reduced boiler downtime by 13 days per annum.
A series of bi-monthly ‘Reliability Forums’ followed on from the workshops. Attendees represented all aspects of the business and helped to
build momentum by providing people with recognition and encouragement as they presented their action team success stories. The forums
also provided the opportunity to identify and take action on barriers that needed to be removed to encourage more
defect elimination.
As the change process gathered pace, further workshops were held to build organizational capability. These Supervising the Change®
workshops were open to leaders and indeed anyone irrespective of their position, who wanted to get more deeply involved. The workshops
were particularly effective in helping to redefine the first line leader’s role; moving from just coping with problems to identifying recurring
defects and launching further action teams.

2.Paying for performance is a prominent issue in modern Human Resources Management (HRM). Organizations have long conceived that
production and productivity improve when pay is linked to performance and have evolved payment-by-results (PBR) systems and incentive
schemes to endorse this belief (Milkovich & Newman 2004). Expectancy theory informs that if people want more pay and believes that
working harder will get it for them; they will work harder and perform better (Bassett 1993). But how to make the theory work in practice
has seldom caught people's attention as it does today. In 1951 the International Labour Office (ILO) defined PBR as wage systems that relate
a worker's earnings directly to some measurement of the work of the individual, the group or the work unit. Among benefits the ILO claimed
for PBR which at that time relied heavily on quantitative techniques like work study and industrial engineering were increased output from
improved efficiency, lower production costs, better control of labour costs, less need for direct supervision and more even production flows
(Milkovich & Newman 2004). Half a century later, performance pay is interpreted in less mechanistic terms and may be defined more simply
as the explicit link of financial rewards to individual, group or organizational performance.

Reward management is regarded as an important role in the HRM. Most organizations realized that reward reinforces employee focus on
their performance, enhance motivation levels and gain their commitment (Allen & Kilmann 2001). This section will review the current
literature; explain the objective of reward, the definition and determinants of rewards and the argument of whether reward is a motivator as
employee performance. These conceptions are all supporting the research subject: the effect of reward on employee's performance.

Rewarding performance is a key to accountability. It is one of the positive imports of accountability. When employees are aware that rewards
are tied to their performance, they will be committed to performing and will take ownership of their actions. Additionally, when employees
are rewarded for performance, they evolve a sense of accomplishment, which makes them take pride in their work, which in turn increases
ownership (Armstrong 2002).

Extrinsic reward is initiated from outside the person and includes (Armstrong 2002): salary and wages, employee benefits, interpersonal
rewards, promotions.

Intrinsic reward is the ones that is self-administered by the person and encompasses (Armstrong 2002): completion, achievement, autonomy,
personal growth.
The strategic aim of reward management is to evolve and enforce the reward policies, processes and practices to affirm the accomplishment
of organization's business goals (Armstrong & Murlis 2004).

The specific aims are:

- Creating total reward processes that are established on beliefs about what the organizational values want to accomplish.
- Aligning reward practices with business goals and employee values
- Rewarding employees fairly for the value they chip in. The fairness objective calls for fair treatment for all employees by accrediting both
employee contributions, for example, higher pay for greater performance, experience, or training; and employee need, such as a fair wage as
well as fair procedures. (Milkovich 2005).
- Rewarding right things to communicate the right message about what is significant in terms of expected behaviors and consequences.
- Attraction and retention of the skilled and competent people the organization needs, thus holding back the talent in a stiff human resource
market.
- Enhancing the staff performance and attaining their commitment and engagement, increasing the quality that leads delighting the customers
and stockholders.
- Develop a positive employment relationship and psychological contract (Armstrong & Murlis 2004).
PART B

Definition: Employee involvement is creating an environment in which people have an impact on decisions and actions that affect their jobs. Employee
involvement means that every employee is regarded as a unique human being,not just a cog in a machine, and each employee is involved in helping the
organization meet its goals. Each employee’s input is solicited and valued by his/her management. Employees and management recognize that each
employee is involved in running the business
Employee involvement is not the goal nor is it a tool, as practiced in many organizations. Rather, it is a management and leadership
philosophy about how people are most enabled to contribute to continuous improvement and the ongoing success of their work organization.
Employee Involvement Model
For people and organizations who desire a model to apply, the best I have discovered was developed from work by Tannenbaum and
Schmidt (1958) and Sadler (1970). They provide a continuum for leadership and involvement that includes an increasing role for employees
and a decreasing role for supervisors in the decision process. The continuum includes this progression.
• Tell: the supervisor makes the decision and announces it to staff. The supervisor provides complete direction.
• Sell: the supervisor makes the decision and then attempts to gain commitment from staff by "selling" the positive aspects of the
decision.
• Consult: the supervisor invites input into a decision while retaining authority to make the final decision herself.
• Join: the supervisor invites employees to make the decision with the supervisor. The supervisor considers her voice equal in the
decision process.
• Delegate: the supervisor turns the decision over to another party.
-Disadvantages:
1. Employees don't know all it takes to run a company.
2. Employees may harbor unfounded grudges against each other or the company.
3. Employees may not feel committed to doing their best for the company.
4. Employees often don't have much invested in the overall success of the company.
5. Employees can present false interest.
6. Employees may have conflicting interests.

However, EI has disadvantages as well. It means that the traditional management power of decision-making is shared with employees.
Decisions may be delayed and valuable internal resources wasted in the process. EI also requires substantial supplementary investments
including worker training, which pays off only with a considerable time lag. Moreover, extensive EI practices are likely to lead to stronger
bargaining power for employees and may distort corporate decisions, resulting in a deterioration of corporate performance. Lastly, EI
programs do not solve the associated free-riding problems (Smith, 1991; Freeman and Rogers, 1993; Maranto, 1994; Doucouliagos, 1995).71
A relatively large body of studies indicates that there is a positive relation between EI practices and productivity, though the degree of
association is generally weak. A meta-analysis based on 15 quantitative studies shows that employee participation in decision-making has a
weak positive effect on worker productivity (Doucouliagos, 1995). Firms with flexible organizational practices generally enjoy better
financial performance and higher productivity (OECD, 2000). Evidence also shows that EI is an innovation whose economic gain accrues
largely to workers, rather than to the firm and shareholders (Freeman and Kleiner, 2000; and Freeman, Kleiner, and Ostroff, 2000). Still, the
majority of studies following the meta-analysis of Doucouliagos (1995) generally report positive effects of various EI practices on such
corporate performance measures as labor productivity and return on assets (Black and Lynch, 2000; Huselid and Becker, 1996; and Kirkman
and Rosen, 1999).
Empirical investigations generally confirm a complementarity among various practices of employee participation. They show evidence of a
significant productivity gain for groups of participatory employment practices: among these are information sharing, both at the top and
grassroots levels, and financial participation, and innovative human resources and work practices (Kato and Morishima, 1999; Berman, et.
al., 1999; Michie and Sheehan, 1999; Ichniowski, et. al., 1997; and OECD, 2000). However, some find little or no productivity effect where
these individual innovations are adopted in isolation. As more direct evidence of complementarity, studies find that firms with EI practices or
flexible work organizations are also more likely to have shared compensation schemes, supportive human resource management practices,
and higher requirements for skills/tasks and education (Freeman, Kleiner, and Ostroff, 2000; OECD, 2000 and 1995).