Changes to the definition of internal auditing have increased the scope of internal audit by explicitly including consulting activities. Yet, despite recognition and clarification of the consulting role for internal audit, little subsequent research has been undertaken. Hence, we aim in this article to provide a comparison of the nature, extent and consequences of the definitional change on internal audit consulting activities undertaken by a sample of IIA members in the UK/Ireland and Italy. A comparison of the results of the two self-completion questionnaire surveys reveals a significant rise in the levels and scope of activities in consulting in both countries but this has been greater in the UK/Ireland. While there are similarities between the countries, more UK/Ireland members are involved in change management and project management, while a majority of Italian members are involved in model design and implementation. In both countries, internal auditors are experiencing both benefits and drawbacks

Change process models, developed in the tradition of Lewin, tend to emphasize people as resisting change, portray leading and coping with change as discrete entities, and reify the organization. In contrast, this article reports on findings from two descriptive surveys examining leading and coping processes. Attitudes, opinions and organizational practices were investigated to identify and describe variability in change in financial service institutions in the City of London as led by top managers and as experienced by employees. A 'leading and coping with change' framework that emphasizes the social process dynamics of change is developed which managers can utilise as a conceptual tool to guide action. This is built around the finding that change leaders are themselves part of the process, and that the judgmental and cognitive processes which employees engage in, in their relationship with those leading change, is crucial.

T he HR profession has been concerned with establishing the contribution of HRM to organisational performance in measurable terms, at both a speci® c (HR activities) and a general (organisational) level. Furthermore, HRM uses various technologies to direct employees' behaviour towards objectives and tasks that deliver approved organisational performance. Many organisations try to frame these `levers' within an overall performance management system, and attach incentives and rewards to the achievement of objectives and targets within this.However, there are a variety of disconnections possible between organisational performance, HR performance, performance management and incentive structures. For example, detailed measures for justifying the effectiveness and ef® ciency of HR activities may not re¯ect what delivers true performance for an organisation. Such measures are, in effect, part of the performance management system applied to the HR function and may themselves not be clearly linked to business or other outcomes. Equally, there are many cases where incentive schemes operate without being closely tied into a performance management system.The purpose of this article is to deconstruct some of the problems and faults in conception and design which surround performance and rewards in HRM and to introduce a model for planning and thinking about these things more sensibly. In particular, it is an attempt to clarify what performance we should be talking about, how and whether it is measurable and how performance is best improved, before the HR specialist is called on to redesign an organisation's reward system. This is not the ® rst time, nor undoubtedly the last, that this task has been undertaken. Lawler (1990) and Kerr (1975Kerr ( , 1988, among others, have devoted many years trying to bring clear thinking to this area. However, it is still necessary to reiterate many of the basic lessons from time to time.The article is in two parts. The ® rst draws on a study for the Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD) into Investors' View of People Management (Hendry, Woodward, Harvey-Cooke and Gaved, 1997Gaved, , 1999, which reviewed the uses and abuses of performance measures in the course of `developing agreed criteria and information relating to good people management as an element in company performance'. This identi® es some of the practical problems around performance and sets the scene for the second part, which is more directly concerned with performance management. In this, we draw on the work of the Strategic Remuneration Research Centre (SRRC) in developing a tool to help companies think more systematically about performance management (Hendry, Bradley and Perkins, 1997).The common ground between these two pieces of work lies in the view that measuring people performance is vitiated by the obsession with control and therefore is liable to undermine, rather than contribute to, performance. It should only be done within a context of strict attention to corporate business objectives and a limited number of s...

This study investigated the potential for improving the quality of information available to investors on the management and development of people within companies. Sixty-eight exploratory interviews were held with four key`constituencies' who were hypothesized to hold different views on the relevance of people management factors in assessments of corporate performance. These were fund managers, brokers' analysts, corporate management (chief executives, finance directors, investor relations directors) and human resource directors. The findings, to a large extent, confirm the stereotype that the investment community does not greatly take account of people management factors in their estimation of companies. But this is not for the reasons often assumed. Additionally, while there is great scepticism about the value and efficacy of highly specified`hard' measures of HR performance, the findings reveal the potential for an alternative approach that can provide information of more value to investors.

An investigation was undertaken into the important, yet neglected area of the people aspects of management buyout (MBO/MBI). Since prior work suggests that management is, by far, one of the most crucial factors in the success of MBOs an in‐depth study focused on the characteristics of buyout managers, the culture of management buyout teams, and influences on behaviours during the transaction. This paper reports one part of the study ‐ that relating to management buyout stressors. The aspect of the transaction that generates the most stress was found to be time pressure. Generally, however, the results suggest that stressors, identified by the literature and through focus groups, were not perceived as stressful by this group of buyout managers. Related to this, was the finding that the majority were able to cope with these stressors. Regression analysis indicated that a key factor in manager’s ability to cope was the open/interactive nature of the management team culture.