Performance‐Appraisal Beliefs of Chinese Employees in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta

Abstract

Working adults from Hong Kong (HK; N ¼ 102) and the Pearl River Delta (PRD; N ¼ 96) participated in a Chinese-language, 20-item, structured interview. The interview addressed five topics: performance criteria, implementation of the appraisal, factors attributed to performance, methods of feedback, and concerns about the use of performance appraisal (PA) at work. Results indicated that most respondents believe that PA facilitates communication between superiors and subordinates, that effective performance is a function of each individual's internal attributes (which may include aspects external to the workplace), and that feedback should be direct and frank, communicated by someone with authority and power. These results are consistent with the beliefs of people living in societies characterized as high in Confucian dynamism. We discussed implications of the findings for the use of PA in Chinese enterprises in HK and PRD.

Are “standardized performance appraisal practices” really preferred? A case study in China

“…Lunnan et al (2005) suggested that when transferring “foreign best practices” to MNC subsidiaries, national values may present some initial barriers. In line with those views, a recent study by Cheng and Cascio (2009) suggested that there were obvious differences in the preference for appraisal practices between employees in China and Western countries. However, in spite of such awareness, it is somewhat surprising to find that standardized performance appraisal systems are still commonly applied in many MNCs as a convenient way of comparing performance across company boundaries (Dowling et al , 1999; Lindholm et al , 1999).…”

“…This finding is to some extent consistent with a conclusion in the research of Lindholm et al (1999), who noted “the seeming lack of initiative” of local Chinese employees in the workplace and suggested that without clear instructions, Chinese employees tended to avoid the responsibility to do such tasks even though they may have already noticed it. Similarly, Cheng and Cascio (2009) stated that in high uncertain‐avoidance cultures likely China, employees usually expected supervisors to provide clear instructions because they were commonly assumed to be “the one with knowledge”. Another explanation of this lack of responsibility may have a root in a top‐down hierarchical organizational structure, as suggested by Hempel (2001) that obedience is one of the important performance dimensions in the context of China.…”

“…Also, the Chinese item “quanli” (in‐group) and “quanwai” (out‐group) take root from this concept of social hierarchy. Moreover, within this social structure, communication patterns tend to be top‐down and behaviors of challenging authority are considered abnormal and hard to accept, just as Cheng and Cascio (2009, p. 330) proposed that, “it is considered inappropriate for people in inferior positions (subordinates in the workplace) to express opinions counter to those of people in superior positions)”.…”

Leniency Bias in Performance Ratings: The Big-Five Correlates

“…Various explanations have been offered. For example, a cross-cultural perspective in individualism-collectivism (Farh et al, 1991; Xie et al, 2006; Heine and Hamamura, 2007; Cheng and Cascio, 2009; Ng et al, 2011) was found to be relevant in rating biases. Recently, there had been evidence supporting the contrary (Brown, 2010)—that is, while cultural factors may moderate leniency effect, the tendency to self-enhance is universal.…”

Culture and performance appraisal in multinational enterprises: Implementing French headquarters' practices inMiddle East and North Africasubsidiaries

“…These practices stand in contrast to more typical performance appraisal practices of Western MNEs that are generally higher on individualism and lower on power distance. Western practices tend to involve multiple contributors to the appraisal process (Cheng & Cascio, 2009; Fletcher & Perry, 2001), as well as performance criteria being objective and quantitative (Giangreco et al, 2010) to meet expectancy principles that people will be rewarded directly for their performance (Kudisch, Fortunato, & Smith, 2006).…”