Sometimes employee performance will be below that established or expected by the organisation in the first stages of the performance management process. In this chapter, we examine how to diagnose the causes of underperformance. We then investigate the mechanism through which an employee is given feedback about their performance (the formal performance ‘review’ and check-ins). We focus on the provision of negative performance feedback: why it can be problematic for supervisors and employees, as well as tactics for its effective delivery. The chapter concludes with a discussion of performance development strategies and practices. We examine coaching and its impact on employees and organisations.

This chapter examines the legal and social context of employment testing bias and fairness in Germany. Germany’s legal framework emphasizes individual rights and experienced discrimination, rather than scrutinizing testing systems. The Holocaust’s legacy shapes German views on fairness, making “Rasse” (“race”) a loaded term. The chapter addresses demographics, including the large migrant population and debates on sex/gender equality. Key legal protections are enshrined in the “Grundgesetz” (Basic Law) and the General Act on Equal Treatment (“Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz”). A German standard sets quality criteria for selection processes. Regulatory bodies – such as the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, works councils (“Betriebsrat,” representing employees’ interests in many German organizations), and the Disabled Employee Representative Body – address workplace discrimination, with the Betriebsrat able to veto selection methods. Legal recourse is limited to minor compensation. In summary, although German laws affect other areas of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, their impact on personnel selection science is rather low.

In the United States, the legal environment for selection is a central issue that plays a large role in the practice of industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Concern for adverse impact, bias, and fairness goes hand in hand with concern for reliability and validity in the design of any professionally developed selection system. The United States is racially and ethnically diverse (roughly 59 percent White, 19 percent Hispanic/Latino, 13 percent Black/African American, 6 percent Asian American, and 1 percent Native Americans/Alaskans Natives). Federal legislation specifies seven protected classes: race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. Most of the discussion of bias and fairness in the selection field focuses on race and sex. Legislation, court rulings, government guidance, and professional standards offer a complex framework for the consideration of issues of bias and fairness, an overview of which is provided in this chapter.

For most employees, pay typically comprises three main elements: base pay, employment-related benefits and performance-related pay, with base pay being the primary component of total pay for most non-executive employees. Benefits plans are also assuming increased importance in the fixed or foundational component of total pay, alongside base pay. In this chapter, we consider the nature and purpose of each component of fixed or foundational pay, particularly their pivotal role in attracting and retaining staff. We also consider the options for configuring these components and the strategic priorities to which each might be best suited. We examine the two main options for configuring base pay: (1) pay for the content of the job/position to which the employee is assigned; and (2) pay for job-holder capabilities. We explore the pay structures associated with each option, the evaluation methods and processes associated with the development of pay systems based on each of these approaches, and the general strengths and weaknesses of each approach. It is vital to have a solid understanding of the structures and pricing processes associated with each of these broad approaches to base pay configuration.

In Great Britain, the Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination across services, work, and education. Given its application across contexts, a non-prescriptive, case-by-case approach considering the context and available evidence is taken to determine whether employment decisions have a discriminatory impact. When there is a claim of unlawful discrimination, employers may be required to provide relevant evidence that the selection procedure represents a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Where it is more prescriptive is in cases of indirect discrimination (disparate impact), with its two-step process for burden of proof, where claimants must first provide sufficient evidence of unlawful discrimination before employers must then provide adequate evidence against the case. However, methods and thresholds for testing disparate impact are not defined. As such, practitioners in the UK can look to guidance and regulations in other more stringent jurisdictions, such as the US, where guidance is more developed, for best practices regarding specific approaches to testing for bias and fairness in selection procedures.

This chapter deals with the risks faced by workers and trade unions when they engage in industrial action which falls beyond lawful boundaries. For the trade union, the risk is that the action will be restrained by an injunction, while it remains open to an employer to bring an action for damages, though this is rarely done. For the workers participating in the action, there is the risk of dismissal and other sanctions imposed by the employer. The chapter also considers the role of ACAS in dispute resolution, and assesses the extent to which British law is consistent with international legal obligations.

The relation of subordination that characterises the contract of employment is created by the implied terms of the contract of employment such as the duty of obedience. Recently the courts have confirmed that both parties are under a duty not to destroy mutual trust and confidence and to perform the contract in good faith. The employee owes a duty of loyalty and both parties have to respect confidentiality. The chapter also examines the legal effect of breach of health and safety standards, tax law, immigration law and competition law on the enforceability of the contract of employment.

In this final chapter, we explore emerging trends in business, technology and society, with a particular focus on how these developments are influencing ideas, practice, employee experience and academic research in the field of performance and reward management. We begin with emerging trends and practices that are already impacting the design of performance and reward management systems and academic research in the field. We focus on three interconnected global trends that have already started to change performance and reward management practice; an impact that is very likely to increase in the years ahead. The first trend is the technological revolution associated with the digitisation of nearly all areas of work and leisure; the second is the progressive disruption of the traditional 20th-century ‘standard hours’ model of co-located employment by far more flexible and non-standard working arrangements; and the third is the social transformation flowing from generational change around the world. We wrap up the chapter by revisiting the two ‘reality check’ themes considered throughout the book, as well as canvassing some of the cutting-edge academic research relevant to each theme.

Selection processes in France are governed by a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework that prioritizes fairness, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity. French labor laws explicitly prohibit discrimination based on twenty-five criteria, including sex/gender, ethnicity, disability, and age. Despite these protections, disparities persist, fueling ongoing policy debates and legislative refinements. Regulatory bodies such as the Defender of Rights oversee compliance and promote unbiased hiring practices. However, implicit biases and structural barriers continue to influence employment decisions, challenging efforts to achieve true workplace equality. Employers must balance legal obligations, diversity objectives, and test validity while adapting to evolving EU regulations, such as the AI Act (2024). The introduction of diversity labels and corporate social responsibility initiatives reflects a proactive commitment to fostering inclusive workplaces. Yet enforcement challenges remain, as rising reports of workplace discrimination highlight persistent gaps. Several recommendations have been proposed to mitigate discrimination without compromising the quality and effectiveness of selection methods.

The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the ground of various protected characteristics: sex, race, disability, age, religion and gender. It protects against direct discrimination where there is adverse treatment because of a protected characteristic, and also indirect discrimination where the same rule is applied to all groups but has an unjustified and disproportionate adverse effect on a group. Adverse treatment includes harassment and victimisation. There is in addition a duty of reasonable accommodation for disabled workers. The law also requires equal pay for women for similar work or work that has equal value to that performed by men.

The Human Rights Act requires courts to decide cases in conformity with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights in so far as possible. Employees must bring a claim under UK employment law and then the rights, whether at common law or under statute, should conform to the Convention rights such as the right to respect for private life, freedom to manifest a religion, and freedom of expression.

Beginning with a discussion of the right to strike in international law, the chapter explains how most industrial action was regarded as a tortious wrong. Statute provides a limited immunity for trade unions and their officials for industrial action that is part of a trade dispute. In order to obtain that immunity in tort, trade unions must carry out a secret ballot of the members to demonstrate that there is majority support for a strike. Apart from the foregoing, this chapter also examines legal restrictions on secondary action and picketing, and concludes with a discussion of the limited impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the scope of the right to strike in British law.