Go Back   ManagementParadise.com | Management & Business Education Learning Platform PUBLISH / UPLOAD PROJECT OR DOWNLOAD REFERENCE PROJECT > Human Resources Management (H.R)

Human Resource Management of Domtar

Discuss Human Resource Management of Domtar within the Human Resources Management (H.R) forums, part of the PUBLISH / UPLOAD PROJECT OR DOWNLOAD REFERENCE PROJECT category; ...

Reply

 

Thread Tools Display Modes
Human Resource Management of Domtar
Old
 (1 (permalink))
Netra Shetty
netrashetty is on a distinguished road
 
netrashetty
Student of PGDM at Mats Institute of Management and Entrepreneurship
Bangalore, Karnataka
Management Paradise Guru
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,857
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Bangalore, Karnataka
Human Resource Management of Domtar - January 25th, 2011

Domtar Corporation (TSX: UFS, NYSE: UFS) is the largest integrated producer of uncoated freesheet paper in North America and the second largest in the world based on production capacity, and is also a manufacturer of papergrade pulp.

Domtar designs, manufactures, markets and distributes a wide range of business, commercial printing, publication as well as technical and specialty papers with recognized brands such as Cougar, Lynx Opaque Ultra, Husky Opaque Offset, First Choice and Domtar EarthChoice Office Paper, part of a family of environmentally and socially responsible papers.

Domtar owns and operates Domtar Distribution Group, an extensive network of strategically located paper distribution facilities. The company employs nearly 10,000 people. Its head office is in Montreal and its operations center is in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance appraisal is now widely recognized as an essential process for making people successful,
by having agreed work objectives and priorities clear standards for judging success and a structured and
transparent process for staff and their managers to communicate about how these standards are being
met and what may be needed to address shortfalls.

An effective performance management system should



improve the understanding that staff members have of their work responsibilities by clearly
identifying their major work objectives and the quality of performance that is expected of them










improve the understanding that managers have of their own work responsibilities

enhance communication between the staff member and respective manager on work-related issues

help staff to assess objectively their own work performance

help managers to assess objectively the work performance of the staff who report to them

identify and resolve any performance-related problems in a timely way

provide an opportunity to identify staff development needs

enhance job satisfaction for staff at all levels

provide information to management to help them make decisions on professional advancement and
allocation of rewards to staff



link individual performance and development to organizational objectives

Effective performance management systems include the following features:



There is a clearly defined start, middle, and end of the appraisal cycle (i.e., to keep the system
“alive” during the year, rather than it being a “once-a-year” exercise);



The “performance targets” accommodate both work objectives and required competencies, with a
clear alignment between the latter and the organization’s staff classification guidelines;



There is a higher level manager’s review of the performance targets to ensure consistency of
expectations of staff in the same staff group and grade;



Some form of diary is maintained for both parties to record progress/problems/changes in objectives
(rather than trying to recall, at the end of the year, events that occurred 8 months before);




There is a mid-term progress review, with brief notes;

The first input to the end-of-year appraisal is provided by the staff member, with specific provision
for recording unexpected achievements/benefits (i.e. other than those planned when the objectives
were set);



There is a face-to-face meeting between supervisor and staff member, at which the latter provides
his/her assessment and reconciles any differences of opinion and allocates a performance rating;



A sensible number of options are available for performance ratings, well-worded (i.e., don’t use the
term “satisfactory”), and there is a clear, logical connection between the ratings and (a) the
achievement of objectives and (b) demonstration of competencies;



There are clearly defined channels for resolving disagreements between staff member and
supervisor; and



There is a higher level manager’s review of the evaluation to ensure consistency of evaluation of
staff in the same staff group and grade.

Performance appraisal systems applicable to research staff should be designed so that performance with
respect to these success factors is addressed to the extent these are applicable to a particular staff–this is
a key aspect of aligning incentives. This should be reflected in the criteria established in performance
agreements.

Implementing a well-aligned performance assessment system requires a great deal of management
effort. This note will not attempt to also cover performance assessment systems in any depth, but
among the “alignment” issues that Centers need to consider are:



The limitations of an annual assessment when research may have a much longer term. Suitable
milestones that have overall consistency over a longer period need to be identified



One measure used in performance assessments of researchers, which is relatively easy to objectively
quantify, is publications. However, this may not be a fully representative measure of impact or
result dissemination-the questions related to where research is published and who is using are
relevant. Some research may not be amenable to assessment in terms of publication output.

The measurement of success in the mobilization of resources is, for many researchers, a controversial
and uncomfortable new indicator. Where used, performance agreements need to be very specific about
how researchers are expected to address this criterion. Centers should consider whether such criterion
should be applied selectively to research staff. For some researchers, it may be the product of specific
efforts, within their field of research, to identify and realize new sources of funds. For others, further
resource mobilization may be the outcome of high-quality science that is well regarded by donors, rather
than specific mobilization efforts.

for nonprofessionals or those at lower job levels. Job satisfaction alone is not
a
consistent predictor of individual work performance.
Argument: Performance Causes Satisfaction :If high levels of
performance cause job satisfaction, the message to managers is quite
different. Rather than focusing first on peoples job satisfaction, attention shou
ld
be given to helping people achieve high performance; job satisfaction would be
expected to follow. Research indicates an empirical relationship between
individual performance measured at a certain time period and later job
satisfaction. A basic model of this relationship, based on the work of Edward E.
Lawler and Lyman Porter, maintains that performance accomplishment leads to
rewards that, in turn, lead to satisfaction. In this model rewards are interveni
ng
variables; that is, theylink performance with later satisfaction. In addition, a
moderator variableperceived equity of rewardsfurther affects the
relationship. The moderator indicates that performance will lead to satisfaction
only if rewards are perceived as equitable. If an individual feels that his or h
er
performance is unfairly rewarded, the performancecausessatisfaction
relationship will not hold.
Argument: Rewards Cause Both Satisfaction and Performance : This final
argument in the job satisfactionperformance controversy is the most
compelling. It suggests that a proper allocation of rewards can positively
influence both performance and satisfaction. The key word in the previous
sentence is proper. Research indicates that people who receive high rewards
report higher job satisfaction. But research also indicates that performance-
contingent rewards influence a persons work performance. In this case, the size
and value of the reward vary in proportion to the level of ones performance
accomplishment. Large rewards are given for high performance; small or no
rewards are given for low performance. And whereas giving a low performer only
small rewards initially may lead to dissatisfaction, the expectation is that the
individual will make efforts to improve performance in order to obtain greater
rewards in the future. The point is that managers should consider satisfaction
and performance as two separate but interrelated work results that are affected
by the allocation of rewards. Whereas job satisfaction alone is not a good
predictor of work performance, well-managed rewards can have a positive
influence on both satisfaction and performance.
What kindles dissatisfaction? · Earnings or benefits
· Job quality or workplace support
· Lack of appreciation
· Stagnation or no growth
· Lack of freedom
Best Practices -Employee Satisfaction

organizational and individual expatriate performance is through increasing emphasis on cultural control, defined as a combination of personal control and control by socialization (Baliga and Jaeger 1984). The rationale behind this is that self-managed performance will contribute to overall MNE performance by mitigating the control problems of coordination, consistency and compliance inherent in MNEs. For example, it would be important for any expatriate to an identified a clear, shared understanding of the company's mission and objectives; the visible behavior and public actions of senior management; and the organization's personnel policies, practices, and systems as three important tools affecting the culture of the organization. Because there could be differentiated structures inside subsidiaries, expatriates should be accustomed to a shared superordinate vision, individual self-control,
Advertisements


Last edited by netrashetty; January 25th, 2011 at 12:52 PM..
   
Friends: (0)
Reply With Quote
Re: Human Resource Management of Domtar
Old
 (2 (permalink))
James Cord
jamescord is an unknown quantity at this point
 
jamescord
Management Paradise Guru
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,112
Join Date: Mar 2016
Re: Human Resource Management of Domtar - March 29th, 2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by netrashetty View Post
Domtar Corporation (TSX: UFS, NYSE: UFS) is the largest integrated producer of uncoated freesheet paper in North America and the second largest in the world based on production capacity, and is also a manufacturer of papergrade pulp.

Domtar designs, manufactures, markets and distributes a wide range of business, commercial printing, publication as well as technical and specialty papers with recognized brands such as Cougar, Lynx Opaque Ultra, Husky Opaque Offset, First Choice and Domtar EarthChoice Office Paper, part of a family of environmentally and socially responsible papers.

Domtar owns and operates Domtar Distribution Group, an extensive network of strategically located paper distribution facilities. The company employs nearly 10,000 people. Its head office is in Montreal and its operations center is in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance appraisal is now widely recognized as an essential process for making people successful,
by having agreed work objectives and priorities clear standards for judging success and a structured and
transparent process for staff and their managers to communicate about how these standards are being
met and what may be needed to address shortfalls.

An effective performance management system should



improve the understanding that staff members have of their work responsibilities by clearly
identifying their major work objectives and the quality of performance that is expected of them










improve the understanding that managers have of their own work responsibilities

enhance communication between the staff member and respective manager on work-related issues

help staff to assess objectively their own work performance

help managers to assess objectively the work performance of the staff who report to them

identify and resolve any performance-related problems in a timely way

provide an opportunity to identify staff development needs

enhance job satisfaction for staff at all levels

provide information to management to help them make decisions on professional advancement and
allocation of rewards to staff



link individual performance and development to organizational objectives

Effective performance management systems include the following features:



There is a clearly defined start, middle, and end of the appraisal cycle (i.e., to keep the system
“alive” during the year, rather than it being a “once-a-year” exercise);



The “performance targets” accommodate both work objectives and required competencies, with a
clear alignment between the latter and the organization’s staff classification guidelines;



There is a higher level manager’s review of the performance targets to ensure consistency of
expectations of staff in the same staff group and grade;



Some form of diary is maintained for both parties to record progress/problems/changes in objectives
(rather than trying to recall, at the end of the year, events that occurred 8 months before);




There is a mid-term progress review, with brief notes;

The first input to the end-of-year appraisal is provided by the staff member, with specific provision
for recording unexpected achievements/benefits (i.e. other than those planned when the objectives
were set);



There is a face-to-face meeting between supervisor and staff member, at which the latter provides
his/her assessment and reconciles any differences of opinion and allocates a performance rating;



A sensible number of options are available for performance ratings, well-worded (i.e., don’t use the
term “satisfactory”), and there is a clear, logical connection between the ratings and (a) the
achievement of objectives and (b) demonstration of competencies;



There are clearly defined channels for resolving disagreements between staff member and
supervisor; and



There is a higher level manager’s review of the evaluation to ensure consistency of evaluation of
staff in the same staff group and grade.

Performance appraisal systems applicable to research staff should be designed so that performance with
respect to these success factors is addressed to the extent these are applicable to a particular staff–this is
a key aspect of aligning incentives. This should be reflected in the criteria established in performance
agreements.

Implementing a well-aligned performance assessment system requires a great deal of management
effort. This note will not attempt to also cover performance assessment systems in any depth, but
among the “alignment” issues that Centers need to consider are:



The limitations of an annual assessment when research may have a much longer term. Suitable
milestones that have overall consistency over a longer period need to be identified



One measure used in performance assessments of researchers, which is relatively easy to objectively
quantify, is publications. However, this may not be a fully representative measure of impact or
result dissemination-the questions related to where research is published and who is using are
relevant. Some research may not be amenable to assessment in terms of publication output.

The measurement of success in the mobilization of resources is, for many researchers, a controversial
and uncomfortable new indicator. Where used, performance agreements need to be very specific about
how researchers are expected to address this criterion. Centers should consider whether such criterion
should be applied selectively to research staff. For some researchers, it may be the product of specific
efforts, within their field of research, to identify and realize new sources of funds. For others, further
resource mobilization may be the outcome of high-quality science that is well regarded by donors, rather
than specific mobilization efforts.

for nonprofessionals or those at lower job levels. Job satisfaction alone is not
a
consistent predictor of individual work performance.
Argument: Performance Causes Satisfaction :If high levels of
performance cause job satisfaction, the message to managers is quite
different. Rather than focusing first on peoples job satisfaction, attention shou
ld
be given to helping people achieve high performance; job satisfaction would be
expected to follow. Research indicates an empirical relationship between
individual performance measured at a certain time period and later job
satisfaction. A basic model of this relationship, based on the work of Edward E.
Lawler and Lyman Porter, maintains that performance accomplishment leads to
rewards that, in turn, lead to satisfaction. In this model rewards are interveni
ng
variables; that is, theylink performance with later satisfaction. In addition, a
moderator variableperceived equity of rewardsfurther affects the
relationship. The moderator indicates that performance will lead to satisfaction
only if rewards are perceived as equitable. If an individual feels that his or h
er
performance is unfairly rewarded, the performancecausessatisfaction
relationship will not hold.
Argument: Rewards Cause Both Satisfaction and Performance : This final
argument in the job satisfactionperformance controversy is the most
compelling. It suggests that a proper allocation of rewards can positively
influence both performance and satisfaction. The key word in the previous
sentence is proper. Research indicates that people who receive high rewards
report higher job satisfaction. But research also indicates that performance-
contingent rewards influence a persons work performance. In this case, the size
and value of the reward vary in proportion to the level of ones performance
accomplishment. Large rewards are given for high performance; small or no
rewards are given for low performance. And whereas giving a low performer only
small rewards initially may lead to dissatisfaction, the expectation is that the
individual will make efforts to improve performance in order to obtain greater
rewards in the future. The point is that managers should consider satisfaction
and performance as two separate but interrelated work results that are affected
by the allocation of rewards. Whereas job satisfaction alone is not a good
predictor of work performance, well-managed rewards can have a positive
influence on both satisfaction and performance.
What kindles dissatisfaction? · Earnings or benefits
· Job quality or workplace support
· Lack of appreciation
· Stagnation or no growth
· Lack of freedom
Best Practices -Employee Satisfaction

organizational and individual expatriate performance is through increasing emphasis on cultural control, defined as a combination of personal control and control by socialization (Baliga and Jaeger 1984). The rationale behind this is that self-managed performance will contribute to overall MNE performance by mitigating the control problems of coordination, consistency and compliance inherent in MNEs. For example, it would be important for any expatriate to an identified a clear, shared understanding of the company's mission and objectives; the visible behavior and public actions of senior management; and the organization's personnel policies, practices, and systems as three important tools affecting the culture of the organization. Because there could be differentiated structures inside subsidiaries, expatriates should be accustomed to a shared superordinate vision, individual self-control,
Hello netra,

I also got some information on Annual Report of Domtar and would like to share it with you and other student's. So please download and check it.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Annual Report of Domtar.pdf (4.21 MB, 0 views)
Friends: (0)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
domtar, human, management, resource
Related to Human Resource Management of Domtar
 

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Human Resource Management of AT&T Netra Shetty Human Resources Management (H.R) 1 March 26th, 2016 11:40 AM
Human-Resource-Management-Chapter-Human Capital management rpatel748 Human Resources Management (H.R) 2 March 15th, 2016 03:26 PM
Concepts of Personnel Management, Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management kanodia.pooja Human Resources Management (H.R) 17 June 10th, 2015 06:13 PM
human resource practises in different banking sectors- human resource management proj neha_1385 Human Resources Management 10 August 3rd, 2009 04:14 PM
Human Resource Management Kumar Kum Articles !! 0 May 5th, 2009 07:06 AM
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


ManagementParadise.com is not responsible for the views and opinion of the posters. The posters and only posters shall be liable for any copyright infringement.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.