It is agreeable that performance appraisal brings value to the organization, in terms of evaluating the staff and giving a feedback of whether their performance meets the expected standard of a company. Additionally, it identifies what skills needs improvement, it acts as a yard stick for basing rewards and it enables the human resource department to choose the best skills that are needed to achieve the organizations objectives. However, human resource experts like Susan Heathfield assert that, “performance appraisal does not work”. By this she means that it is very detrimental to the strength of teamwork in an organization. Individual employees would more than often strive to be recognized as individuals, thus they would either work in their own, hence reducing the amount of output that would be achieved as a team. In effect, an organization can eliminate this disadvantage of performance appraisal by recognizing employees as a team. This is performance appraisal of a team. The United States Office of Personnel Management, which states that, documented an overview of this in an article saying that “Organizations that only measure and recognize performance are jeopardized because they appear to be ignored”. It states further that organization have been able to achieve team goals by balancing the measurement of individual and team performance (1998).
Recent research found that managers working in a non-standard international assignments act as “carriers of knowledge between their home and host units” (Rechie & Harzing, 2009). This is because multinational corporations have interests on developing and emerging economies. For that reason therefore they experience major challenges due to cultural difference and distance from their mother companies. On the other hand, typical expatriates have a different role, in that they establish they establish control based on socialization and the creation of informal communication networks (Rechie & Harzing, 2009).
Criminalizing foregn bribery is actually a good thing because it will expose bribery and create transparency in multinational organizations. Transparency in these organizations is the most important thing, which will be protected by this move.
Expatriate assignments come a long with many problems, some of them being additional costs to the company, increased bureaucracy, and inflexibility. Additionally, communication channels between the Headquarter and its subsidiaries is highly impaired as a result of “poor development of the relationship between the local collegues and customers while also having the risk of marital problems” (Tahvanainen, Worm, & Welch, 2005).
In conclusion, in order for MNCs to reduce risk of terrorism the companies should put up effective risk management strategies. Many of these strategies have been exploited, like; checklists and systematic analysis. However, a lot of MNCs have left out the option of insurance from terrorism. This was never very important to many companies until the terrorist attacks of ‘September 11th’ The occurrence aroused the need for this form of insurance and should be embraced by most MNCs to hedge the risk of terrorism.