Incident A Matter of Priorities Essay Example for Free

Incident A Matter of Priorities Essay Thompson, production manager of Thompson Manufacturing, has the final authority when hiring any new supervisors. Sheila is currently looking to fill a position and having her Human Resources manager, Pete Peterson, do preliminary interviews to do the initial screening of applicants before being sent to her for final approval. Preliminary interviews are being conducted at the same time Sheila is having a very busy day. Pete Peterson has found a possible suitable young applicant by the name of Allen Guthrie that he would like Sheila to immediately see since Mr Guthrie is already on the premises. Current Situation Sheila Thompson is already having a hectic day at her office. While a search for a suitable candidate out of the applicant pool to fill a supervising position is being conducted by the Human Resources manager, Pete Peterson, Ms. Thompson is busy at work taking multiple phone calls and handling business affairs for Thompson Manufacturing. Pete Peterson has contacted Sheila about a possible candidate he finds will make an excellent supervisor that she has been looking for. Although Sheila is too busy to have in interview she agrees to see Mr. Guthrie immediately. During their interview Ms. Thompson has to take multiple phone calls and halt their interview progress. The duties she must attend to have come before the interview and Mr Guthrie, her applicant, many times. After another interruption Mr Guthrie has to leave in order to pick up his wife from work. The interview has not been completely, but Sheila has instructed Allen Guthrie to call her at another time. Answering the Questions Sheila Thompson has been tasked with having the final approval of hired applicants when looking to fill a supervisor position. The applicants go through the normal procedure in order to make it through into a structured interview. A structured interview has the ability to â€Å" increase reliability and accuracy by reducing the subjectivity and inconsistency of unstructured interviews†(Mondy 153). Her applicant who made it through the screening, Allen Guthrie, was advised he would be able to have an interview with Ms.Thompson immediately after his screening. Sheila notably has been far too busy already to take on this take, being impromptu, but decided she would see the applicant in leu of her busy schedule. Sheila, being the production manager that she is should have realized it was not the time to conduct a structured interview with any applicant at that time. She simply could have instructed her Human Resources manager, Pete Peterson, that it would have been improper for the applicant and her current work situations. Sheila should have made the executive decision to either commit herself to the interview, or schedule it for another day where she can put the invested time needed when conducting an interview for a possible supervisor. There were too many interruptions understand the applicant fully and give the interview the time it deserved to make an executive decision. Also, when a her attention, when able to be given, was on her applicant there were more pressing work concerns at hand at that time. Interviews should happen on a time when there would be a low impact on office hours and business. For the future, a scheduled interview will cause a less of an business impact and she would be able to focus her attention on her applicant in order to make an executive decision if he is the right fit for the position. Sheila Thompson, being the production manager, makes the final approval for all her intended supervisors. Her Human Resources manager, Pete, makes the selection process and forwards them to Sheila for final approval. Pete may have an idea of what Sheila is looking for, but he can only try to find a right fit based on experience and record. Since Sheila has the final approval she may be looking for something that Pete does not look for or screen for. Having Pete screen possible applicants will cut down on time spent for the production manager, who is obviously busy, but should be handled for employees not in the pool for a supervising position. If Sheila is the only manager able to make the final approval for supervisors, she should be the one running the selection process as well. If what Sheila is searching for, does not match what Pete screens for there it can waste precious company time and resources. The selection process of choosing from a group of applicants the individual best suited for a particular position and the organization†(Mondy 138). Pete may very well reject an employee he may not find suitable for the position, while Sheila may have found the applicant perfect. In order for time and company efficiency it is in Sheila’s, and Thompson Manufacturing, that she do the selection process if she wishes to have the final approval as well. Conclusion Sheila Thompson never should agreed to conduct an impromptu interview in the manner that she had. An interview is meant to find the perfect candidate suitable for the position in question and the company as a whole. With the interview performed how it was she was not able to perform her duties as a production manager or hiring manager for supervisors. If she had been in charge of the selection process for supervisor positions she could have allocated proper time to find the pool of candidates that fit her needs for the position as well as set up a proper time where she could conduct the interview without office distractions.

Performance Appraisal System

Performance Appraisal System Procedural justice and Interactional justice: Assessing employees perception of fairness of performance appraisal; an empirical study of a small manufacturing company. ABSTRACT This research identifies procedural justice and interactional justice influences on perceived fairness of performance appraisal at a small private manufacturing company located in Newcastle, UK. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of procedures used to determine the appraisal ratings. Interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness of the raters interpersonal treatment of the ratee during the appraisal process. A qualitative and quantitative case study method was used to obtain an understanding of employee perceptions of the fairness of their performance appraisal. Data from both interviews with nine employees was collected along with questionnaires completed by these participants. Two hypotheses were developed. Both hypotheses were supported by research data. 1.1 Aim of the researcher The researcher will assess the relationship between perceived fairness of justice among employees of the performance appraisal system. The aim of this research is to prove through this study that level of employees satisfaction with the appraisal system is influenced by the employees perceived fairness of procedural and interactional justice of the performance appraisal session. 1.2 Introduction Performance appraisal is a process designed to evaluate, manage and ultimately improve employee performance. It should allow the employer and employee to openly discuss the expectations of the organisation and the achievements of the employee. That is, the primary emphasis is on future development of the employee within the objectives of the organisation. There is no universally accepted model of performance appraisal. However, more often than not this process is designed around the following elements: setting performance goals and objectives; measurement of performance against those goals and objectives; feedback of results; amendments to goals and objectives. Performance appraisal systems can provide organisations with valuable information to assist in the developments of organisational strategies and planning. The information gained from this process can assist: in identifying and developing future management potential; in increasing performance and overall productivity; it works towards identifying strengths and managing weaknesses; in providing clarity to employees about an organisations expectations regarding performance levels; in providing an opportunity to audit and evaluate current human resources and identify areas for future development. Managers may conduct appraisals primarily to affect employee input through the feedback process, or justify some sort of human resource action (termination, transfer, promotion etc). Jawroski and Kohli (1991) identify other benefits that can be obtained from performance appraisals. Among these benefits are increase in role clarity, performance, and job satisfaction. Given the positive returns obtained from performance appraisals, one could reasonably expect that organisations would devote considerable resource to the appraisal process. Correspondingly, it may be anticipated that managers try to make certain that the dimensions of the appraisal process are known, understood, and supported by the participants. Theres probably no management process that has been the subject of more research than the performance appraisal. At the best managed companies, the performance appraisal is no joke it is a serious business that powers the success of the organization. (Montague, 2007) It has been suggested that to enhance satisfaction, managers should consider expanding the evaluation criteria to include those criteria which are important to the employee, perhaps creating a participatory performance appraisal system. (Thomas and Bertz 1994) In fact, employee input into the process has been described as having an impact on the perceived fairness of the evaluation (Latham at el. 1993). It has been stated that the opinions of employees, as they pertain to the appraisal system, may be greater determinant of the systems effectiveness than the validity or reliability of the system itself (Wanguri 1995). As stated by Thomas and Bretz (1994) without a sense of ownership, both managers and employees may view the process with fear and loathing. Thus, they contend that a major concern in the evaluation process is an acceptance of the system by those employees being evaluated. To this end, if employees believe they are evaluated based upon inappropriate criteria, it would fol low that their commitment to and satisfaction with the organisation supporting this particular evaluation system would be correspondingly reduced. Academic background 2.1 The social context of performance appraisal Levy Williams (2002) argue that identifying, measuring, and defining the organizational context in which appraisal takes place is integral to truly understanding and developing effective performance appraisals. Further, it is believed that this has been the framework driving the performance appraisal research since about the 1990 and into the beginning of the 21st century. Whether it is discussed as the social-psychological process of performance appraisal (Murphy Cleveland, 1991), the social context of performance appraisal (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, Fitzgibbons, 1994) the social milieu of performance appraisal (Ilgen at al. 1993), performance appraisal from the organisational side (Levy Steelman, 1997) the games that rates and rates play (Kozlowski, Chao Morrison, 1998), or the dues process approach to performance appraisal (Folger, Konovsky Cropanzao, 1998) it is argued along with other scholars that performance appraisal takes place in a social contact and the context plays a major role in the effectiveness of the appraisal process and how participants react to the process (Farr Levy, 2004). It has been suggested elsewhere that research over the last 10 years has moved noticeable away from a limited psychometric scope and toward an emphasis on variables that compose the social context (Fletcher, 2001). Distal factors Levy Williams (2002) definition of distal variables is generally consistent with Murphy and Cleveland (1995). Specifically, distal variables are broadly construed as contextual factors that affect many human resource systems, including performance appraisal. In other words, distal variables are not necessarily related to performance appraisal, but they may have unique effects on the performance appraisal process that are useful to understand and consider. Distal factors include but are not limited to organisational climate and culture, organisational goals, human resource strategies, external factors, technological advances, and workforce composition. Levy Williams (2002) believe these factors have an effect on rater and rate behaviour, although not directly. For instance, an organisation that espouses a continuous learning culture may structure and implement a very different type of performance appraisal system than an organisation without such a culture. A review of the performance appraisal literature over the last 7-10 years reveals little systematic empirical work on the distal variables other than some studies on culture, climate and technology issues (see, e.g. Hebert Vorauer, 2003). While this is at some levels disappointing, it is rather understandable. First, there is little theory specific to performance appraisal to methodically guide this level of research. Second, the breadth of the constructs Levy Williams (2002) construe as distal make it difficult to measure and implement within the research setting. Third, given the distal nature of these factors, their direct effects on performance appraisal behaviour may be small. Perhaps closer examination of the relationships between distal and proximal relationships would prove more fruitful. Even with the difficulties regarding this type of research, however, it is believed it will be important to continue examining these factors to fully understand the social context in which performance appraisal operates. (Levy Williams, 2002) Process proximal variables The next two section of the paper will underscore those proximal variables (both process and structural) receiving attention in the recent appraisal literature. Some researchers chose to categorize the proximal variables as either process (i.e. having a direct impact on how the appraisal process is conducted including things such as accountability or supervisor subordinate relationships), or structural (i.e. dealing with the configuration or makeup of the appraisal itself and including areas such as appraisal dimensions or frequency of appraisal). Rater issue Rater affect is one of the most studied rater variables. Although the literature has not been consistent regarding a formal definition of affect in performance appraisal (Lefkowitz, 2000), a good general definition linked to most of this research involves liking or positive regard for ones subordinate. The Affect Infusion Model (Forgas Georges, 2001) suggests that affective states impact on judgements and behaviours and, in particular, affect or mood plays a large role when tasks require a degree of constructive processing. For instance, in performance appraisal, raters in good moods tend to recall more positive information from memory and appraise performance positively. Consistent with the Affect Infusion Model, a few recent studies have examined the role of mood or affect in performance appraisal. Lefkowitz (2000) reported that affective regard is related frequently to higher appraisal ratings, less inclination to punish subordinates, better supervisor subordinate relationships, greater halo effect, and less accuracy. A couple of recent studies have looked at the role of similarity in personality and similarity in affects levels between raters and rates, finding similarity is related to appraisal ratings. Antonioni and Park (2001) found that affect was more strongly related to rating leniency in upward and peer ratings than it was in traditional top-down ratings and the this effect was stronger when raters had observational time with their subordinates. They concluded from this that raters pay so much attention to their positive regard for subordinates that increased observations result in noticing more specific behaviours that fit their affect-driven schema. It was also found that although affect is positively related to appraisal ratings; it is more strongly related to more subjective trait-like ratings, then to ostensibly more objective task-based ratings. Further, keeping performance diaries tended to increase the strength of that relationship between affect and performance ratings leading the authors to conclude that perhaps affect follows from subordinate performance level rather than the other way around. A second broad area related to raters that has received considerable research attention has to do with the motivation of the raters. Traditionally, research seemed to assume that raters were motivated to rate accurately. More recently, however, researchers have begun to question whether all or even most raters are truly motivated to rate accurately. One line of research related to raters motivation has focused on the role of individual differences and rating purpose on rating leniency. Most practitioners report overwhelming leniency on the part of their raters and this rating elevation has been found in empirical papers as well as surveys of organisations (Murphy Cleveland, 1995). The role of attributions in the performance appraisal process has also attracted some recent research attention. In some of these studies investigators have examined how the attributions that raters make for ratees behaviours affect their motivation to rate or their actual rating. For instance, using a traditional social psychological framework, researchers found that whether individuals opted for consoling, reprimanding, transferring, demoting, or firing a hypothetical employee depended in large part on the extent to which rater believed that the exhibited behaviour was due to ability or effort. It was found that both liking and attributions mediated relationships between reputation and reward decisions. More specifically, raters consider ratees behaviour and their reputations when drawing attributional inferences and deciding on appropriate rewards. The implications of this line of research are clear: attributional processing is an important element of the rating process and these attributions, in part, determine raters reactions and ratings. (Murphy Cleveland, 1995) A second line of research related to rater motivation has to do with rater accountability, which is the perceived potential to be evaluated by someone and being held responsible for ones decisions or behaviours (Frink Ferris, 1998) With respect to performance appraisal, accountability is typically thought of as the extent to which a rater is held answerable to someone else for his or her ratings of another employee. They concluded that accountability can result in distortions of performance ratings. It is demonstrated that raters told that ratees had been rated too low in the past responded by inflating ratings while others told that they would have to defend their ratings in writing provided more accurate ratings. In a follow up to this study it was hypothesized that the accountability pressure on raters to justify ratings may operate through an increased motivation to better prepare themselves for their rating task. This was manifested in raters paying more attention to performanc e and recording better performance-related notes. A related study looking at accountability forces in performance appraisal found that raters inflated ratings when they were motivated to avoid a negative confrontation with poor performers, but did not adjust ratings downward when good performers rated themselves unfavourably (Levy Williams 1998). Ratee issues A second major of focus of performance appraisal research consist of research centred on the performance appraisal ratee. Two areas were covered, in particular, the links between performance ratings and rewards; those elements of the performance appraisal process which increases ratees motivation such as participation. Related article argues the while pay is an important motivator along with recognition, work enjoyment , and self-motivation, very few organisations actually link the performance appraisal system to pay or compensation in a clear, tangible way (Mani, 2002). Both traditional academic research (Roberts Reed, 1996) and more practitioner-focused research (Shah Murphy, 1995) have identified the significance of participation in the appraisal process as an antecedent of ratees work motivation. It suggests that participation is simply essential to any fair and ethical appraisal system. It was identified that participation and perception of fairness as integral to employees pe rceptions of job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Roberts Reed (1996) take somewhat similar track in proposing that participation, goals, and feedback impact on appraisal acceptance which affects appraisal satisfaction and finally employee motivation and productivity. Performance appraisals are no longer just about accuracy, but are about much more including development, ownership, input, perceptions of being valued, and being a part of an organisational team. Focus on reactions to the appraisal process Cardy and Dobbins (1994) arguing that perhaps the best criterion to use in evaluating performance appraisal systems was the reactions of ratees. The claim was that even the most-psychometrically-sound appraisal system would be ineffective if ratees (and raters) did not see it as fair, useful, valid, accurate, etc. Good psychometrics cannot make up for negative perceptions on the part of those involved in the system. Folger et al. (1992) define three elements that must be present to achieve higher perceptions of fairness: adequate notice, fair hearing, and judgement based on evidence. Although they identified specific interventions that should be implemented to increase due process, they cautioned that â€Å"due process mechanisms must be implemented in terms of guiding principles (i.e. designed with process goals in mind) rather than in a legalistic, mechanical, rote fashion. In general studies have found that both ratees and raters respond more favourably to fair performance appraisal systems (e.g. less emotional exhaustion, more acceptances of the feedback, more favourable reactions toward the supervisor, more favourable reactions toward the organisation, and more satisfaction with the appraisal system and the job on the part of both rater and rate) (Taylor et al. 1995, 1998). Trust issue Researchers have posited that trust is the key element in managing the supervisor employee relationship. According to Mayer and Davis (1999) trust is made up of three components: ability, benevolence, and integrity. In other words, if an employee believes a supervisor has the skills to properly appraise, has the interests of the employee at the heart, and believes the supervisor upholds standards and values, the employee is likely to trust that supervisor. Interest in understanding the processes related to trust are the result of research that support both direct and indirect effects of trust on important organisational and individual outcomes. For instance it is supported by research the relationship between trust and outcomes such as employee attitudes, cooperation, communication, and organizational citizenship behaviours. As with appraisal perceptions and reactions it is also believed that trust issues can limit the effectiveness of performance appraisal. If ratees have low level s of trust for their supervisor, they may be less satisfied with the appraisal and may not as readily accept feedback from the source. More to come 2.2 Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) performance appraisal Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) are a relatively new approach to performance evaluation. They are in effect a combination of the graphic rating scales and the critical incident method. An actual description of important job behaviour is developed and â€Å"anchored† alongside the scale. The evaluator is then asked to select the description of behaviour which best matches actual employee behaviour for the rating period. In a controlled field study, Silverman and Wexley (1984) used BARS to test the effect of rate participation on the appraisal process. BARS were developed for each of the following job classifications: clerical, non-clerical staff, technical and professional, nursing, management/supervisory. Those employees who participated in creating, and were evaluated by, the behaviourally-based scales, had a more positive reaction to the entire performance appraisal process. Specifically, they felt that the performance appraisal interviews were more useful, that their supervisors were more supportive, and that the process produced more motivation to improve job performance. BARS address many of the problems often found in traditional evaluation approaches such as the halo effect, leniency, and the central tendency error. In addition, research suggests that many employees prefer this evaluation method (Rarick Baxter, 1986) BARS are however not a panacea for management and do possess both advantages and disadvantages. According to Rarick and Baxter (1986) advantages of BARS are: clearer standards both subordinate and superior have a clearer idea of what constitutes good job performance. Ambiguity concerning expectations is reduced; more accurate measurement because individuals involved with the particular job develop the BARS instrument they have a good understanding of the requirements for good performance; better performance feedback since the BARS is based on specific behaviour it provides a guideline for improving future work performance; better consistency BARS have been shown to be more consistent in terms of reliability than more traditional e valuation methods. In other words, when more than one supervisor rates the same employee, the results are more similar when BARS is the evaluation method. Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales are, however, not without drawbacks. Disadvantages of BARS are: more costly more time and effort, and eventually more expense is involved in the construction and implementation of BARS; possible activity trap since BARS are more activity oriented, they may cause both supervisor and subordinate to become more concerned with activity performance rather than accomplishing actual results; not exhaustive behaviour scale even if the rator posses lengthy listing of behaviour examples he/she may not be able to match the observed behaviour with the stipulated anchor. As Rarick and Baxter (1986) note Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales have the potential to increase both the accuracy of employee appraisal and ultimately the effectiveness of the organization. BARS are equally useful as a judgemental instrument and as an employee developmental device. They are designed to make performance appraisal more accurate by minimising ambiguity and focusing on specific behaviour. BARS move employee performance appraisal away from the subjective opinions of the evaluator and closer towards on objective measure of true performance. 2.3 Limitations in performance appraisal The advantages and disadvantages of using performance assessment in making employment decisions are well documented (e.g. Murphy Cleveland, 1995). The limitations of performance assessment, such as inflated ratings, lack of consistency, and the politics of assessment (Tziner, Latham, Price Haccoun, 1996), often lead to their abandonment. Managers responsible for delivering performance reviews who are uncomfortable with the performance rating system may give uniformly high ratings that do not discriminate between rates. Poor ratings detract from organisational uses and increase employee mistrust in the performance appraisal system (Tziner Murphy, 1999). Employees on the receiving end of the appraisal often express dissatisfaction with both the decisions made as a result of performance assessment and the process of performance assessment (Milliman, Nason, Zhu De Cieri, 2002), which may have longitudinal effects on overall job satisfaction (Blau, 1999) and commitment (Cawley, Keepin g Levy, 1998). The extensive research on performance appraisal (Arvey Murphy, 1998: Fletcher, 2001: Fletcher Perry, 2001, Murphy Cleveland 1995) has not addressed the fundamental problems of the performance appraisal process the performance appraisal is influenced by a variety of relevant, non-performance factors such as cultural context (Latham Mann, 2006), that it does not provide either valid performance data or useful feedback to individuals (Fletcher, 2001) , or that performance appraisal instruments often measure the â€Å"wrong things† (Latham Mann, 2006). Murphy and Cleveland (1995) state that â€Å"a system that did nothing more than allow the making of correct promotion decisions would be a good system, even if the indices used to measure performance were inaccurate or measure the wrong set of constructs.† No assessment system, however, would meet with success if it did not have the support of those it assessed. In developing a new performance appraisal system it is important to use past research on performance appraisals that identified a number of factors that lead to greater acceptance of appraisals by employees. Firstly, legally sound performance appraisals should be objective and based on a job analysis, they should also be based on behaviours that relate to specific functions that are controllable by the rate, and the results of the appraisal should be communicated to the employee (Malos, 1998). Secondly, the appraisals must be perceived as fair. Procedural fairness is improved when employees participate in all aspects of the process, when there is consistency in all processes, when the assessments are free of supervisor bias, and when there is a formal channel for the employees to challenge or rebut their evaluations (Gilliland Langdon, 1998). In addition to perceptions of fairness, participation by employees in the appraisal process is related to motivation to improve job performance, satisfaction with the appraisal process, increased organisational commitment and the utility or value that the employees place on that appraisal (Cawley et al. 1998). 2.4 Blended approach Competencies To overcome the problem of job-specific performance dimensions, the performance assessment system was based on behaviourally defined core competencies (Dubois 1993; Klein 1996). The core competencies had been previously identified through an extensive process as being common to all positions; these competencies were to become the basis for training new recruits and for the continuous development of existing members (Himelfarb, 1996). Fletcher Perry (2001) stated the â€Å"the elements constituting what we normally think of as performance appraisal will increasingly be properly integrated into the human resources policies of the organisation using the same competency framework for all HR processes, linking individual objectives with team and business unit objectives framing the input of appraisal to promotion assessment in an appropriate manner, and so on† making it â€Å"more effective mechanism and less of annual ritual that appears to exist in a vacuum.† Along the s ame lines, Smither (1998) went on to note that the same competency model should guide â€Å"numerous human resource initiatives†. The competency development process used for this study followed the suggestions of Fletcher Perry (2001) and Smither (1998) and included a review of functional job analysis data for general police constables that covered a majority of the different job positions. In this sense, the competencies were blended by incorporating the values and specific attributes (Schippmann et al., 2000). A blended approach is one that couples and organisations strategy in the derivation of the broad competencies with the methodological rigor of task analysis. As Lievens, Sanchez, and De Corte (2004) note, blended approach is likely to improve the accuracy and quality of inferences made from the resulting competency model because a blended approach capitalizes on the strength of each method. Strategy is used as a frame of reference to guide subject matter experts to identify those worker attributes or competencies that are aligned with the organisations strategy and the to use the task statements to pro vide more concrete referents for the associated job behaviours (Lievens et al., 2004) 2.5 Justice of fairness The study of justice of fairness has been a topic of philosophical interest that extends back at least as far as Plato and Socrates (Ryan, 1993). In research in the organizational sciences, justice is considered to be socially constructed. That is, an act is defined as just if most individuals perceive it to be on the basis of empirical research (Cropanzao Greenberg 1997). Each approach propose a different way of conceptualizing justice, from the provision of process control (Thibaut Walker, 1975) to a focus on consistency control (Leventhal et al. 1980) and an examination of interpersonal treatment (Bies Moag, 1986). Performance appraisal systems are among the most important human resource systems in organizations insofar as the yield decisions integral to various human resource actions and outcomes (Murphy and Cleveland 1995). Reactions to appraisal and the appraisal process are believed to significantly influence the effectiveness and the overall viability of appraisal systems (Bernardin and Beatty 1984; Cardy and Dobbins 1994; Carroll and Schneier 1982, Lewer 1994), For instance. Murphy and Cleveland (1995:314) contended that â€Å"reaction criteria are almost always relevant and an unfavourable reaction may doom the most carefully constructed appraisal system†. Perceptions of fairness are important to all human resource processes, e.g., selection, performance appraisal, and compensation, and particularly so, to the performance appraisal process. Indeed, a decade ago, Cardy and Dobbins (1994:54) asserted that â€Å"with dissatisfaction and feelings of unfairness in process and inequity in evaluations, any appraisal system will be doomed to failure.† Other researchers have also acknowledged the importance of fairness to the success or failure of appraisal system (Taylor et al. 1995). 2.6 Procedural justice Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures used to determine appraisal outcomes (Greenberg 1986a), independent of favourability or fairness of the performance rating or its administrative consequences (Skarlicki, Ellard and Kelln 1998). Folger et. al (1992) have developed a procedural justice model for performance appraisal, rooted in the due process of law, and possessing three basic factors: adequate notice, a fair hearing and judgment based on evidence. Adequate notice involves giving employees knowledge of appraisal system and how it affects them well ahead of any formal appraisal. More specifically, it entails developing performance standards and objectives before the appraisal period commences. These standards and objectives must be well documented, clearly explained, fully understood and preferable set by mutual agreement, with employees only held accountable for standards and objectives properly communicated to them. Adequate notice also involves hi gh appraisal frequency and giving employees constant feedback on timely basis throughout the performance evaluation period, so that employees can rectify any performance deficiencies before the appraisal is conducted (Folger et al. 1992). Studies show that adequate notice is important to employee perceptions of procedural fairness. Williams and Levys (2000) study of 128 employees from three US banks revealed that system knowledge significantly predicts appraisal satisfaction and procedural fairness, controlling for the much smaller effect on organizational level. The second factor that affects employee perceptions of procedural fairness is a fair hearing. A fair hearing means several things in a performance appraisal context. These include: an opportunity to influence the evaluation decision through evidence and argument, access to the evaluation decision, and an opportunity to challenge the evaluation decision (Folger et al. 1992). Fundamentally, a fair hearing entails two-way comm unication, with employee input or voice in all aspects of the appraisal decision-making process. Several researchers have consistently found the ‘voice effects procedural justice in a variety of work contexts (Greenberg, 1986; Korsgaard and Robertson, 1995). In a study of 128 food service employees and their 23 supervisor at a large, US university, Dulebohn and Ferris (1991) found that the informal voice provided by influence tactics affected employee perceptions of fairness in the appraisal process. Two types of influence tactics were differentiated: the first on the supervisor and the second on the job. Influence of the supervisor focused on, for example, efforts at ingratiation. Influence on the job focused on, for example, manipulating performance data. Uses of supervisor-focused, influence tactics were positively associated with employees perceptions of procedural justice, but uses of job-focused influence tactics were negatively associated. The authors argue that this negative association may result from reverse causation: perception of unjust appraisal procedures ma y encourage employees to adopt job-focused influence tactics. The third procedural justice factor is the judgment based on evidence. This means convincing employees that ratings do accurately reflect per

Of mice and men Essay examples -- essays research papers

Of Mice and Men   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Of Mice and Men was written during a period of racism. In the 1960's it was important for everyone to get along with eachother because not everyone was equal. George and Lennie showed a great part in friendship throught the whole book. At the ranch in Selinas mostly everyone showed friendship in some way. Friendship was a great factor when the book was published because of all the racism going on at the time.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Friendship has a big part to do with Lennie and George’s dream of owning a small farm and raising animals. George and Lennie both set their mind to accomplish their dream and go to work on a ranch for little pay. Another friend of George overhears George and Lennie talking about their idea, Candy offers to put in his monthly wage to buy the farm as long as he lives on it. Lennie and George have to go through many things on the farm and still stick together like brothers. Curley, the son of the boss, runs most of the ranch and has a mean attitude towards George and Lennie, George then realizes that no one cares for Lennie like he does. George and Curley’s wife create a strong bond throughout the book , but George wants nothing to do with it because he is there to accomplish his goal not to start relationships. Many factors in this book show a sense of friendship in some way.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Both George and Lennie build a strong friendship with the men at the ranch even though it m...

The Medicinal Marijuana Debate Essay -- Medicinal Marijuana Essays

The Medicinal Marijuana Debate For years research groups, certain state governments, pharmaceutical companies and even some physicians have battled with the federal government over the legalization of the marijuana plant for medicinal purposes. Large amounts of research have been devoted to both sides of the argument; however, many of the studies contradict each other when naming the benefits and risks of marijuana. How can we decide whether the therapeutic values of marijuana outweigh the hazards of the drug when there have been no definitive findings? First we must review what is known about marijuana, such as how the chemicals in it affect the body, and then pick which study results seem more scientifically sound. For over 4000 years and in many different cultures, marijuana has been used medicinally for pain relief and treatment of many ailments. These ailments include digestive disorders, hemorrhaging, congestion, asthma and insomnia. The drug has been administered orally, topically and through inhalation. It was not until 1937 that using marijuana became a federal offense with the introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act ((6)). Today, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which defines it as "highly addictive with no medical usefulness"-the same definition given to heroin ((4)). The opioids in heroin and the cannabinoids in marijuana are used similarly by the brain. They either bridge synapses in the brain so that messages can be transmitted, in which case they are acting as agonists, or they block the agonist's binding site so that messages cannot be transmitted across synapses. In the latter case, the cannabinoids or opioids are acting as antagonists ((3)). Cannabinoids and opioids do not cause identica... ...dicine but with severe restrictions. Why deny ill people almost definite relief? References 1) Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/es.html 2) Medical Marijuana: full analysis of the Institute of Medicine's commissioned report http://www.360marijuana.com/marijuana/articles/041999.html 3) Scientific American: Healing Haze? http://www.sciam.com/missing.cfm 4) Drug Enforcement Administration: The Medical Myths of Marijuana http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/sayit/myths.htm 5) ARDPArk, Inc.: Synthetic THC/ Marinol http://www.ardpark.org/reference/marinol.htm 6) Why all the controversy? What does the research actually show? http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/history/chapter.bhtml 7) New, Emerging Evidence of Marijuana's Medical Efficacy http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/emerging.html

Joel Joe Varghese Essay

Don Bosco held its much awaited event-Voice of DBA-Solo Singing Competition for classes 3 to 12. The competition was divided in parts that is, for classes 3 to 5, for 6- 8, for 9 and 10 and for 11 and 12. But fortunately the event for classes 9 and 10 and 11 and 12 was held together. I felt excited as now I could listen to my favourite singer – Joel K Varghese. Many singers came and sung melodiously but when the Joel’s name was announced, the atmosphere of the auditorium transformed to liveliness. Applauses and hoots of students flowed through the auditorium. Joel had won the best solo singer’s award in Bosco Fiesta 2014, so we had great hopes for him being the winner of the competition. And then the lines rang in my years- Lately I have had the strangest feeling, With no vivid reasons here to find†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Silence spread all over the auditorium and we all listened quietly and enjoyed it very much. This song was sung by Joel in Bosco Fiesta 2014 for which he bagged the first prize. Ability to smoothly change and keep pitch, strong lungs, and usually, a lot of talent in auditory memory are the qualities that a good singer has and no doubt that Joel is one of those good singers. His ability to capture attention of the audience through his voice becomes a model for all the Bosconians. His song ended and so did my happiness. I was enchanted and spellbound by Joel’s song. The situation was the same as when William was stunned by the reaper’s song. Results were not declared but I have a strong feeling that Joel will bag the first prize in the competition for he is THE TRUE VOICE OF DBA .

Night Train at Deoli Essay

‘The Night Train at Deoli’ by Ruskin Bond is a story of juvenilely extravagant passion exhibiting unbridled obligation of the protagonist endowed with great sensitivity. Love is an emotion interlaced with a web of perplexing components that is very difficult to unravel. Infatuation lacks depth of love, and it is based on appearance and selfish desire. True love is based on commitment, understanding and entering into another’s feelings, and compassion. In this short story, Ruskin Bond recounts his teenage experience during one of his train journeys to Dehra. He tells us that he used to spend his vacation every summer in his grandmother’s place in Dehra and had to pass a small lonely station, Deoli amidst the jungle on the way. This station appeared strange to him as no one got on or off the train there & nothing seemed to happen there. He wondered why the train stopped there for ten minutes regularly without reason and felt sorry for the lonely little platfo rm. Juvenile love is based on appearance; it is distinctly reflected when the author expresses his feelings for the girl at first sight. On his journey to Dehra, the author happens to see a pale-looking girl selling baskets. She appears to be poor, but with grace and dignity. Her shiny black hair and dark, troubled eyes attracts the author. The girl offers to sell baskets to him. He initially refuses to buy and later when she insists, happens to buy one with a little hesitation, daring not to touch her fingers while taking the basket from her hand. Both of them just look at each other for quite some time, just as it strikes a chord of affection between them. He longs to see her, her searching and eloquent eyes, again on his return journey. The meeting helps to break the monotony of his journey & brings in a sense of attachment & responsibility towards the girl. Fondness is a kind of feelings of affection or love. Here, in the story, the author’s fondness for the girl was unreasoning. Generally, fondness for anything in particular drives a man to be gradually desperate for achieving the thing the person is fond of. But, here author’s fondness for the girl is somewhat imaginative, and the writer shows that he is unwilling to discover what has happened with the girl. He does not want to proceed with an enquiry into the cause of absence of the girl, but instead he decides against going into the village adjoining the station to know the truth. Though, apparently, it looks like an infatuation, yet the writer’s feelings for the girl comes out as selfish desire as he wants to live with his imagination only, and the writer ap prehends to get hit with a bare reality. True love seems to be absent in a relation that is not based on commitment, and there was no sign of responsibility shown from the narrator’s part. – See more at: http://aidtoed.blogspot.in/2012/12/isc-english-literature-2013-night-train_12.html#sthash.oI4KPBc7.dpuf

Hertz Corporation

ALTRIA GROUP, INC. (MO) 10-Q Quarterly report pursuant to sections 13 or 15(d) Filed on 07/26/2012 Filed Period 06/30/2012 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549 FORM 10-Q (Mark One) y QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012 OR ? TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from o Commission File Number 1-08940 Altria Group, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Virginia 13-3260245 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I. R. S. Employer Identification No. ) 6601 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23230 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code (804) 274-2200 Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last reportIndicate by check mark whether the re gistrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ? No ? Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T ( §232. 05 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ? No ? Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of â€Å"large accelerated filer,† â€Å"accelerated filer† and â€Å"smaller reporting companyâ₠¬  in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer ? Accelerated filer ? Non-accelerated filer ? (Do not check if a smaller reporting company) Smaller reporting company ?Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ? No ? At July 16, 2012 , there were 2,032,833,474 shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0. 33 1/3 per share. Table of Contents ALTRIA GROUP, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION Item 1. Financial Statements (Unaudited) Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 3 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 5 Three Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Earnings for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 7 Three Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 8 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stoc kholders’ Equity for the Year Ended December 31, 2011 and the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 9 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 10 Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements 12 Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 61 Item 4. Controls and Procedures 99 PART II – OTHER INFORMATIONItem 1. Legal Proceedings 100 Item 1A. Risk Factors 100 Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds 100 Item 5. Other Information 101 Item 6. Exhibits 102 Signature Signature 103 – 2- Table of Contents PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION Item 1. Financial Statements. Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (in millions of dollars) (Unaudited) June 30, 2012 December 31, 2011 Assets Consumer products Cash and cash equivalents $ Receivables 1,528 $ 3,270 256 268 Leaf tobacco 799 934 Other raw mater ials 184 170 Work in process 269 316 Inventories:Finished product 432 Other current assets 1,779 1,207 Deferred income taxes 359 1,684 1,207 468 Property, plant and equipment, at cost 607 5,143 Total current assets 7,131 4,750 2,512 2,131 Goodwill 4,728 2,619 Less accumulated depreciation 2,216 5,174 Other assets 12,098 6,486 Investment in SABMiller 5,174 12,088 Other intangible assets, net 5,509 472 1,257 31,494 33,385 3,012 Total consumer products assets 3,559 Financial services Finance assets, net Other assets 41 Total Assets $ 18 3,053 Total financial services assets 3,577 34,547 $ See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.Continued – 3- 36,962 Table of Contents Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Continued) (in millions of dollars, except share and per share data) (Unaudited) June 30, 2012 December 31, 2011 Liabilities Consumer products Current portion of long-term debt $ Accounts payable 600 $ 600 335 503 Marketing 5 81 430 Taxes, except income taxes 218 220 Accrued liabilities: Employment costs 110 225 Settlement charges 2,184 3,513 Other 1,217 1,311 Dividends payable 836 7,643 13,089 Long-term debt 841 6,081 Total current liabilities 13,089 Deferred income taxes 5,074 4,751Accrued pension costs 1,139 1,662 Accrued postretirement health care costs 2,367 2,359 Other liabilities 606 602 28,356 30,106 1,764 Total consumer products liabilities 2,811 Financial services Deferred income taxes Other liabilities 119 3,141 30,239 33,247 33 32 935 Total liabilities 330 1,883 Total financial services liabilities 935 Contingencies (Note 11) Redeemable noncontrolling interest Stockholders' Equity Common stock, par value $0. 33 1/3 per share (2,805,961,317 shares issued) Additional paid-in capital 5,647 Accumulated other comprehensive losses 5,674 24,334 Earnings reinvested in the business 3,583 (1,674) (1,887) Cost of repurchased stock (773,116,613 shares in 2012 and 761,542,032 shares in 2011) (24,969) (24, 625) Total stockholders’ equity attributable to Altria Group, Inc. 4,273 3,680 2 3 Noncontrolling interests Total stockholders’ equity 4,275 Total Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity $ 34,547 See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. – 4- 3,683 $ 36,962 Table of Contents Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings (in millions of dollars, except per share data) (Unaudited) For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012Net revenues $ 2011 12,134 $ 11,563 Cost of sales 3,878 3,825 Excise taxes on products 3,560 3,618 Gross profit 4,696 4,120 1,130 1,272 Marketing, administration and research costs Asset impairment and exit costs 37 3 Amortization of intangibles 10 11 3,519 2,834 Operating income Interest and other debt expense, net 586 Earnings before income taxes 572 (743) Earnings from equity investment in SABMiller (344) 3,676 Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests 1,224 2,421 Net earnings 2,6 06 1,255 Provision for income taxes 1,382 (1 ) Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. (1) $ ,420 $ 1,381 Basic earnings per share attributable to Altria Group, Inc. $ 1. 19 $ 0. 66 Diluted earnings per share attributable to Altria Group, Inc. $ 1. 19 $ 0. 66 $ 0. 82 $ 0. 76 Per share data: Dividends declared See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. – 5- Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Earnings (in millions of dollars, except per share data) (Unaudited) For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2012 Net revenues $ 2011 6,487 $ 5,920 Cost of sales 2,086 2,030 Excise taxes on products 1,907 1,918 Gross profit 2,494 1,972 596 671 16 1Marketing, administration and research costs Asset impairment and exit costs Amortization of intangibles 5 Earnings from equity investment in SABMiller 1,295 293 Interest and other debt expense, net 5 1,877 Operating income 294 (223) Earnings before income taxes (155) 1,807 581 Net earnings 712 1,226 Provision for income taxes 1,156 444 Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests (1 ) Net earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. — $ 1,225 $ 444 Basic earnings per share attributable to Altria Group, Inc. $ 0. 60 $ 0. 21 Diluted earnings per share attributable to Altria Group, Inc. $ 0. 60 $ 0. 21 0. 41 $ 0. 38 Per share data: Dividends declared See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. – 6- Table of Contents Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Earnings (in millions of dollars) (Unaudited) For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 Net earnings $ 2,421 2011 $ 1,382 Other comprehensive earnings, net of deferred income taxes: Currency translation adjustments — 1 61 64 154 135 Benefit plans: Amounts reclassified to net earnings SABMiller: Ownership share of SABMiller's other comprehensive earnings before reclassifications to net earningsAmounts reclassified to net earnings (2 ) 5 152 205 2,634 Comprehensive earnings Comprehensive earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests 140 213 Other comprehensive earnings, net of deferred income taxes 1,587 (1) Comprehensive earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. – 7- $ 2,633 (1) $ 1,586 Table of Contents Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Earnings (in millions of dollars) (Unaudited) For the Three Months Ended June 30, 2012 Net earnings $ 2011 1,226 $ 444Other comprehensive earnings, net of deferred income taxes: Currency translation adjustments — 1 39 32 (23) 78 (5) 1 Benefit plans: Amounts reclassified to net earnings SABMiller: Ownership share of SABMiller's other comprehensive (losses) earnings before reclassifications to net earnings Amounts reclassified to net earnings (28) 112 1,237 Comprehensive earnings Comprehensive earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests 79 11 Oth er comprehensive earnings, net of deferred income taxes 556 (1) Comprehensive earnings attributable to Altria Group, Inc. See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. 8- $ 1,236 — $ 556 Table of Contents Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the Year Ended December 31, 2011 and the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 (in millions of dollars, except per share data) (Unaudited) Attributable to Altria Group, Inc. Common Stock (1) Earnings Reinvested in the Business Accumulated Other Comprehensive Losses Cost of Repurchased Stock Non-controlling Interests Total Stockholders’ Equity $ 935 Balances, December 31, 2010 Additional Paid-in Capital $ 5,751 $ 23,459 $ $ (23,469) $ $ (1,484) 3 5,195 — — 3,390 — — 1Other comprehensive losses, net of deferred income tax benefit — — — (403) — — (403) Exercise of stock options and other stock award a ctivity — (77) — — 171 — 94 Cash dividends declared ($1. 58 per share) — — — — (3,266) Repurchases of common stock — — — — — (1,327) Other — — — — Net earnings Balances, December 31, 2011 (3,266) — — (1) 935 5,674 23,583 3 3,683 — — 2,420 — — — 2,420 Other comprehensive earnings, net of deferred income taxes — — — 213 — — 213 Exercise of stock options and other stock award activity — (27) — — 16 — (11) Cash dividends declared ($0. 82 per share) — — — — — (1,669) Repurchases of common stock — — (360) — (360) Balances, June 30, 2012 (1) (1,669) — — — — $ 935 $ 5,647 $ 24,334 — $ (1,674) (24,625) (1) Net earnings (1) Other (1,887) (1,327) 3,391 — $ (24,969) (1) $ 2 (1) $ 4,275 Net earnings attributable to noncontrolling interests for the six months ended June 30, 2012 and for the year ended December 31, 2011 exclude $1 million and $2 million, respectively, due to the redeemable noncontrolling interest related to Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars, which is reported in the mezzanine equity section in the condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 , respectively.See Note 11. See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. – 9- Table of Contents Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (in millions of dollars) (Unaudited) For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 2011 Cash Provided by (Used In) Operating Activities Net earnings (loss) – Consumer products $ 2,311 – Financial services 110 Net earnings $ 1,962 (580) 2,421 1,382 Depreciation and amortization 113 121 Deferred income tax provision 299 132 (743) (344) (34) (24) (456) — Adjustm ents to reconcile net earnings to operating cash flows: Consumer productsEarnings from equity investment in SABMiller Asset impairment and exit costs, net of cash paid IRS payment related to LILO and SILO transactions Cash effects of changes: Receivables, net 2 Inventories (12) 95 Accrued liabilities and other current assets (94) (251) Income taxes 130 (64) Accounts payable 5 58 Accrued settlement charges 58 (1,329) (1,398) Pension plan contributions (514) (209) Pension provisions and postretirement, net 85 122 Other 90 121 Financial services Deferred income tax benefit (1,270) PMCC leveraged lease charges 7 Decrease to allowance for losses 10) Other liabilities (income taxes) 1,437 Other (529) 490 — 505 (21) See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. Continued – 10- 23 (85) Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities 479 Table of Contents Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Continued) (in millions of dollars) (Unaudited) For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 2011 Cash Provided by (Used In) Investing Activities Consumer products Capital expenditures $ Other (39) $ (3) (40) 1 Financial services Proceeds from finance assets 552 129 510 0 — Net cash provided by investing activities 1,494 Cash Provided by (Used In) Financing Activities Consumer products Long-term debt issued Repurchases of common stock (360) (575) (1,674) Dividends paid on common stock (1,589) Issuances of common stock — 29 Financing fees and debt issuance costs — (23) (133) (155) (2,167) (819) Other Net cash used in financing activities Cash and cash equivalents: Decrease (1,742) Balance at beginning of period (250) 3,270 Balance at end of period $ 1,528 See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements. – 11 – 2,314 $ 2,064Table of Contents Note 1. Background and Basis of Presentation: Background At June 30, 2012, Altria Group, Inc. ‘s direct and indirect wholly- owned subsidiaries included Philip Morris USA Inc. (â€Å"PM USA†), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and certain smokeless products in the United States; John Middleton Co. (â€Å"Middleton†), which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of machine-made large cigars and pipe tobacco, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PM USA; and UST LLC (â€Å"UST†), which through its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries including U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC (â€Å"USSTC†) and Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd. (â€Å"Ste. Michelle†), is engaged in the manufacture and sale of smokeless products and wine. Philip Morris Capital Corporation (â€Å"PMCC†), another wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc. , maintains a portfolio of leveraged and direct finance leases. In addition, Altria Group, Inc. held an approximate 27. 0% economic and voting interest in SABMiller plc (â€Å"SABMiller†) at June 30, 2012, whi ch is accounted for under the equity method of accounting. Altria Group, Inc. s access to the operating cash flows of its wholly-owned subsidiaries consists of cash received from the payment of dividends and distributions, and the payment of interest on intercompany loans by its subsidiaries. In addition, Altria Group, Inc. receives cash dividends on its interest in SABMiller if and when SABMiller pays such dividends. At June 30, 2012, Altria Group, Inc. ‘s principal wholly-owned subsidiaries were not limited by long-term debt or other agreements in their ability to pay cash dividends or make other distributions with respect to their common stock.Share Repurchases In October 2011, Altria Group, Inc. ‘s Board of Directors authorized a $1. 0 billion share repurchase program, which Altria Group, Inc. intends to complete by the end of 2012 . During the six and three months ended June 30, 2012, Altria Group, Inc. repurchased 11. 9 million shares (aggregate cost of approximate ly $360 million , and $30. 16 average price per share) and 2. 0 million shares (aggregate cost of approximately $66 million , and $32. 37 average price per share), respectively. As of June 30, 2012 , Altria Group, Inc. had repurchased a total of 23. million shares of its common stock under this program at an aggregate cost of approximately $688 million , and an average price of $29. 01 per share. The timing of share repurchases under this program depends upon marketplace conditions and other factors, and the program remains subject to the discretion of Altria Group, Inc. ‘s Board of Directors. Basis of Presentation The interim condensed consolidated financial statements of Altria Group, Inc. are unaudited. It is the opinion of Altria Group, Inc. ‘s management that all adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the interim results presented have been reflected therein.All such adjustments were of a normal recurring nature. Net revenues and net earnings for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of results that may be expected for the entire year. These statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes, which appear in Altria Group, Inc. ‘s Annual Report to Shareholders and which are incorporated by reference into Altria Group, Inc. ‘s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011. Balance sheet accounts are segregated by two broad types of businesses.Consumer products assets and liabilities are classified as either current or noncurrent, whereas financial services assets and liabilities are unclassified, in accordance with respective industry practices. During the second quarter of 2012, Altria Group, Inc. determined that it had not recorded in its financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2012, its share of non-cash gains from its equity investment in SABMiller, relating to SABMiller's strategic alliance transactions with Anadolu Efes and Castel that were closed during the first quarter of 2012.Because Altria Group, Inc. did not record these gains, it understated by $342 million, $222 million and $0. 11 earnings from equity investment in SABMiller, net earnings/comprehensive earnings, and diluted earnings per share attributable to Altria Group, Inc. , respectively, for the three months ended March 31, 2012. Additionally, Altria Group, Inc. understated its investment in SABMiller, long-term liability for deferred income taxes and total stockholders' equity by $342 million, $120 million and $222 million, respectively, at March 31, 2012.There was no impact on net cash flows from operating, investing or financing activities for the three months ended March 31, 2012. Altria Group, Inc. assessed the materiality of – 12- Table of Contents Altria Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) these understatements in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission 's (â€Å"SEC†) Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99 â€Å"Materiality† and determined that the impact was not material to Altria Group, Inc. ‘s financial statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2012.Accordingly, Altria Group, Inc. has determined that it is appropriate to revise its first quarter 2012 financial statements and has reflected this revision in the financial statements as of and for the six months ended June 30, 2012. Financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2012 reported in future filings will reflect this revision. Altria Group, Inc. ‘s chief operating decision maker has been evaluating the operating results of the former cigarettes and cigars segments as a single smokeable products segment since January 1, 2012.The combination of these two formerly separate segments is related to the restructuring associated with the cost reduction program announced in October 2011 (the â€Å"2011 Cost Reduction Program†). A lso, in connection with the 2011 Cost Reduction Program, effective January 1, 2012, Middleton became a wholly-owned subsidiary of PM USA, reflecting management's goal to achieve efficiencies in the management of these businesses. Effective with the first quarter of 2012, Altria Group, Inc. ‘s reportable segments are smokeable products, smokeless products, wine and financial services.For further discussion on the 2011 Cost Reduction Program, see Note 2. Asset Impairment, Exit, Implementation and Integration Costs. Effective January 1, 2012, Altria Group, Inc. adopted new authoritative guidance that eliminated the option of presenting components of other comprehensive earnings as part of the statement of stockholders' equity. With the adoption of this guidance, Altria Group, Inc. is reporting other comprehensive earnings in separate statements immediately following the statements of earnings. Note 2.Asset Impairment, Exit, Implementation and Integration Costs: Pre-tax asset impa irment, exit and implementation costs for the six and three months ended June 30, 2012 consisted of the following: For The Six Months Ended June 30, 2012 Asset Impairment and Exit Costs For The Three Months Ended June 30, 2012 Implementation (Gain) Costs Total Asset Impairment and Exit Costs Implementation Costs Total (in millions) Smokeable products $ 23 $ (12) $ 11 $ 16 $ 9 $ 25 Smokeless products 14 5 19 — — — General corporate — (1) (1 ) — — — Total $ 37