Employment testing is routinely performed in South Africa today, but this was not always the case. Turning its back on its apartheid history of racial segregation and discrimination, South Africa has developed a progressive legal system to thwart bias and promote fairness in employment testing. This chapter explores employment-related testing in the public and private sectors, beginning with an overview of South Africa’s apartheid history, followed by a discussion of how the current legal system addresses fairness. A distinctive aspect of South African law is that preferential treatment, including lower cutoffs and within-group norming for protected groups, is not only mandated but also widely practised as the norm rather than the exception. Our review concludes that South Africa has enacted an extensive legal framework to promote equality and prevent unfair discrimination.

Belgium follows global standards in psychological assessments, and great attention is paid to issues concerning bias and fairness by legal authorities, test developers, and researchers. Anti-discrimination laws cover around nineteen protected grounds and align with European Union directives, but hiring discrimination persists. This chapter illustrates the tension between the law, test developers and researchers who promote proper test use, and practitioners who continue to rely on tools that can perpetuate bias, such as unstructured interviews and intuition-based decision-making. Despite comprehensive anti-discrimination regulations and affirmative action measures such as gender quotas, there are no legal requirements for the use of valid selection procedures in Belgium. Balancing validity and diversity is emphasized more in the public sector than the private sector. Although professional bodies offer guidelines for appropriate test use, they mainly target clinical settings rather than employment settings.

This chapter explores bias and fairness in Swedish employment testing from legal, historical, and practical perspectives. Swedish labor laws, influenced by trade unions and the welfare state, emphasize non-discrimination under the Discrimination Act. The law prohibits bias based on sex, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and age, and requires preventive action. It is enforced by the Equality Ombudsman and Labour Court. Although validity evidence is not explicitly required, selection decisions should be based on a job analysis. No proof of intent is required in discrimination claims, and the burden of proof is shared. Quotas are banned, but positive action is allowed for gender balance when qualifications are equal. Psychological test certification is voluntary in Sweden; the Psychological Association offers guidelines on validity, reliability, and fairness. However, these are not mandatory, and many employers develop their own policies. International standards offer best-practice guidance for fair assessments, including for emerging artificial intelligence tools.

An employee share plan is any type of plan that allows some or all employees to acquire shares in the organisation that employs them. We identify the features of employee share ownership and the theoretical rationale for it. We then examine why employees participate in an employee share ownership plan and the empirical research on the impact of share plans on organisational performance and employee attitudes and behaviours. Finally, we consider the relationship between employee share ownership and other HR practices, with a particular focus on other forms of performance-related pay.

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.

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.

In this chapter, we detail common approaches to assembling the various concepts, practices and strategies explored previously. In developing an integrated, strategically aligned and psychologically engaging performance and reward system, we need to remember that nothing is ever ‘finished’, that change is the great constant, and that a ‘set and forget’ mindset is destined to fail. Accordingly, we examine the requirements for performance and reward system review, the metrics and tools available to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of current practice configurations, the steps involved in system redesign, and challenges that may be encountered along the way. Finally, we consider the importance of rehearsing and piloting the proposed changes before full rollout, as well as the basic requirements for effective implementation. As in previous chapters, we include reality checks for each of our two key integrative themes: strategic alignment and employee psychological engagement.

This chapter explores employment testing bias and fairness in India. The developments that have led to fair employment practices in India with special reference to affirmative action policies, the reservation system, and the regulatory authorities that oversee hiring processes are reviewed. Measures aimed at the prevention of biases, including structured interviews, blind hiring, and training about unconscious bias are discussed. The chapter also reviews the legal framework for employment fairness, the role of public and private sector organizations, and issues such as the impact of artificial intelligence on selection procedures. Results from a survey of Indian organizations are used to provide empirical insights into the existence, as well as effectiveness, of fairness policies in curbing hiring biases. Further, the chapter compares the situation in India to global perspectives on employment testing bias and fairness and highlights the need to further refine regulatory mechanisms and organizational policies in hiring. Finally, this work indicates significant gaps across various aspects of fair hiring practices in India and identifies areas that require focus and research.