ASAP - Career development paper (just the limitations section)

Employeeperformancemanagementacrossborders.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >ASAP - Career development paper (just the limitations section)

International Journal of Management Reviews (2009) doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00237.x

International Journal of Management Reviews Volume 11 Issue 2 pp. 175–196 175

© 2008 The Authors Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKIJMRInternational Journal of Management Reviews1460-85451468-2370© Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2008XXXORIGINAL ARTICLESEmployee performance management across bordersXX

Employee performance management across borders: A review of relevant academic literature Lisbeth Claus1,2 and Dennis Briscoe

The purpose of this paper is to survey the emerging academic literature on employee performance management (PM) from an international perspective. The primary information source was a search of electronic databases. Two criteria were used to determine which studies to include in the literature survey: (1) those published in an English-language blind refereed academic journal, and (2) those focused on employee PM or performance appraisal (PA) from an international/global perspective. Sixty-four articles, published between 1985 and 2005, met the criteria. A preliminary scheme was developed for classifying the existing academic research into conceptual and empirical articles. The empirical articles were further classified by their foci and themes. In addition to classifying the articles, the paper presents a summary of what can be learned from the major findings of the empirical studies. The major conclusion is that the academic literature on cross-border PM is relatively atheoretical and exploratory in nature and that the design and substance of the research studies are weak. With regard to themes, there are a number of foci in the literature with only scant attention paid to the central concern with the PM of expatriates as expressed by firms. The empirical articles look at the disparate components of PA and are interested mainly in cultural differences as an intervening variable. Several recommendations are presented for researchers to help focus future research on cross-border PM.

The Area of Concern

With increased globalization, concern about the application of Western human resource (HR) practices across borders appears also to be increasing. An important concern relates to

the robustness of these practices in different contexts. This paper is, therefore, concerned with the application of the Western practice of employee performance management (PM) across borders and in non-Western cultural contexts. Although the PM body of knowledge

Employee performance management across borders

is highly US-centric enough academic researchers are turning their attention to the application of the concept in an international context to warrant a systematic review of literature.

The purpose of this paper is to survey the emerging literature on employee PM from an international perspective. Specific aims of the paper are to assess and advance the conceptual understanding of PM from a cross-border perspective, articulate the attributes and com- plexities of the issue as being developed in this literature, and suggest approaches to further empirical research on the topic. Although the primary audience of the paper is academic researchers in the multidisciplinary field of human resource management (HRM), the review may also guide the strategic options of global HR practitioners in multinational organiza- tions by exploring whether a ‘standardized’ global approach to PM can be used effectively in a multinational company (MNC).

Typically, most attention is paid specifically to performance appraisal. But performance appraisal (PA) is just one activity of the PM process, the one that refers to the periodic formal evaluation of an employee’s performance. Reasons for developing a complete PM system are usually couched in terms of the importance of the process to organizational competitiveness and control. Both employees and the organization benefit from PA. Employees receive opportunities for feedback, development and rewards; organizations benefit from being able to monitor individual employee performance and link it to corporate goals. Yet, there is abundant evidence in the psychological litera- ture that the contexts in which performance ratings are obtained and used, and the personality, beliefs and opinions of the raters must be carefully considered (Tziner et al. 2005).

Classification of the Literature

A major concern when undertaking a litera- ture review on a particular subject is to ensure that the survey is coherently bounded so as to warrant such an exercise. Emerging manage- ment topics often do not lend themselves to

the rigors of ‘true’ meta-analysis. This is the case for this literature survey: the studies of cross-border PM and PA are diverse and include a variety of independent and dependent variables and often do not have the level of measurement (e.g. correlations) necessary for meta-analysis. Therefore, a scheme was developed for a preliminary classification of the existing research, first, into academic vs practitioner literature and, secondly, into empirical vs conceptual literature. For the purposes of this literature review, then, our choice was to focus only on the academic literature, as we were primarily interested in the nature and results of the existing research. We further synthesized the academic literature by classifying it into two types of articles; conceptual and empirical. Conceptual articles were those that dealt with the development of conceptual and/or theoretical models and the development of research propositions and hypotheses (i.e. theoretical approaches and thought pieces). Empirical articles were those that dealt with primary data collection of a quantitative or qualitative nature (i.e. original empirical research, ethnographic studies and case studies).

Method

The primary sources used for this literature survey were electronic databases (Business Source Premier/Ebscohost, Google Scholar, Social Science Citation Index, and JSTOR) using a relevant combination of key search terms (performance management and perform- ance appraisal combined with international, global, and expatriate). Further, we adopted a number of criteria to determine whether a study should be included. The selection criteria were:

1. Published in an English-language blind refereed academic journal and subject to rigorous peer review. This excluded studies that were published as a reader or presented as academic papers (for example: Black et al. 1999; Cyr 1995; Davis 1998; Feng et al. 2005; Fulkersen and Schuler

June 2009

1992; Johnson and Olson 1996; Lindholm et al. 1999; Mercer Travik and Lunnan 2005; Milliman et al. 1995) and articles that were not written in English.

2. Focused on employee performance man- agement or performance appraisal from an international/global perspective includ- ing comparative studies with samples from several countries; studies of an MNC operating in several countries; PM of international assignees (expatriate manage- ment); and research on PM in non-North American or European countries.

The researchers are aware that these selec- tion criteria have some inherent biases and that additional insight can be gained from research outside the stated parameters. There- fore, it is important to state what type of research may have been excluded because of the use of the chosen selection criteria. By using the cited electronic databases available to the researcher (Business Source Premier/ Ebscohost, Google Scholar, Social Science Citation Index and JSTOR), three leading electronic journal databases were missing (Swetswise, TANDF and Emerald). These missing databases cover most of the same refereed journals as well as many non-peer reviewed journals. The latter articles would have been excluded anyway, because they are not refereed. By using refereed academic journals as a selection criterion (and thereby omitting non-refereed material), it excluded international management textbooks/readers and professional/practitioner articles. The exclusion of books poses some limitations to the study. The authors are aware of a number of chapters in international and comparative HRM books/readers that have made valuable contributions to the topic under consideration. But a check of the subject index on PM in 32 IHRM international management books showed that the authors relied on the same articles that were in this review. The only difference between books and articles was that the former focused more on PM related to expatriate management and the latter on

PM in MNCs. By the same token, it was noted that many of these authors have previously published a related version of their book chapter as a refereed journal article. The exclusion of articles from practitioners is justified by the fact that they tend to be non-research based. Although English is the common language of academic publications, it is likely that there are valuable articles in non-English language journals on the topic that are excluded as a result of the language selection. Finally, the selection criteria may have excluded a number of regionally based (non-US or European) journals in the Antipodes, Latin America and Africa because they may not have been included in the chosen electronic databases and excluded by our definition of the type of studies under consideration. Therefore, the selection criteria, deliberately chosen to keep the scope of the project man- ageable and within reach of the researchers, are heavily biased towards an Anglo-Saxon and US-centric perspective. In the end, 64 articles met the criteria, with 56 empirical studies (53 quantitative and three qualitative) and eight conceptual /theoretical articles included in this literature survey. The articles were published between 1985 and 2005.

The analysis of the empirical studies followed additional steps. A simple two-by-two table was used to score the articles across a number of characteristics with the purpose of identify- ing patterns. Although the empirical studies under consideration all examined PM or PA in an international/global perspective, they included a wide variety of independent and dependent variables, making them unsuitable for meta-analysis. Subjects of the empirical studies were managers, HR managers, expa- triates, supervisor/subordinate dyads, employees, representatives of companies, peers, and students or companies as a whole as a case study. Table 1 lists the articles, organized by type, that were included in the analysis.

An additional step in the survey of the empirical studies was to decide which features to use for identifying patterns and summarizing the existing empirical research on international

Em p

lo yee p

erfo rm

an ce m

an ag

em en

t acro ss b

o rd

ers

178 ©

2008 The A uthors

Journal com pilation ©

2008 Blackw ell Publishing Ltd and British A

cadem y of M

anagem ent

Table 1. Classification of the international performance management literature

June 2009

PM. Basically, we followed the authors’ state- ments of purpose, their theoretical frameworks, their stated hypotheses, and their major findings. In addition, we used a two-by-two table to identify whether the studies used subjects from single or multiple countries and whether they were studying single or multiple com- panies. An additional judgement was made about the empirical nature of the results. The nature of the results was assessed based on whether the studies used a theoretical frame- work and/or tested hypotheses. The studies were categorized as being low, medium or high on each dimension (see Table 3). The vertical axis represents whether or not a theoretical framework was used in the research (from low to high: no theoretical framework; implied conceptual framework; specifically stated and discussed theoretical framework). The horizontal axis represents whether the research entailed the testing of hypotheses (from low to high: no hypotheses stated or tested; hypotheses inferred or stated post-hoc; hypotheses specifically stated and tested). Studies that were high on both dimen- sions were labeled explanatory. In the findings, we first deal with the conceptual articles followed by the empirical articles.

Findings: Summary of Conceptual Studies

Included in the literature survey are eight articles that have specifically focused on developing conceptual frameworks for study- ing PM and/or PA from an international perspective. The first set of models, developed for strategic international HRM purposes, included PM as an HR activity. Examples included a model for linking HRM and performance (Guest 1997), a model of the HRM and performance relationship from a PM per- spective (den Hartog et al. 2004), and a strategic international performance management and measurement model (Schuler et al. 1991).

A second set of models focused specifically on PM from an international perspective and looked at the impact of culture on performance,

such as a model of cultural fit (Mendonca and Kanungo 1996), socio-cultural and institutional environment influencing performance appraisal (Aycan 2005), an international performance appraisal process model (Harvey 1997), cultural dimensions hypothesized to affect the stages of performance appraisal (Milliman et al. 1998), and the impact of culture on feedback-seeking behavior (Sully de Luque and Sommer 2000). In some cases (Aycan 2005; Milliman et al. 1998; Sully de Luque and Sommer 2000), a number of hypotheses and/or exploratory propositions were suggested for further research. However, these proposi- tions were, mostly, not tested empirically. The above conceptual models provided, each on their own, useful components to understand better the complexity involved in the use of PM or PA across borders. Yet, no model provides an overall view of the design, development and implementation of PM across borders whether from the perspective of an MNC or the application of the Western notion of PM in a non-Western culture.

Findings: Summary of Empirical Studies

To summarize the 56 empirical studies, we first examined their scope, purpose, nature of results, theoretical perspectives, and major research findings. Eleven of the empirical studies (20%) focused on PM of expatriates, 45 studies (80%) focused on one or more other aspects of international /global PM issues.

Scope of the Empirical Studies

The empirical studies were undertaken with subjects in 36 different countries. Thirty- seven studies (71%) focused on multi-country cross-cultural comparisons and 15 studies (29%) focused on a single country. Hong Kong/PR China was the most frequently studied non-Western country, followed by Japan and Taiwan. When two countries were compared, the US or the UK were usually compared with another country – and the other country was most often Hong Kong/PR China. Thirty-one

Employee performance management across borders

studies (60%) used multiple companies in their samples and 21 studies (40%) focused on a single company. Four studies could not be classified owing to missing information (see Table 2).

Purpose of the Empirical Studies

Eleven empirical studies (20%) dealt with PM in the context of expatriation (Caligiuri 1997, 2000; Caligiuri and Day 2000; Eshghi 1985; Gregersen et al. 1996; Janssens 1994; Martin and Bartol 2003; Petersen et al. 1996; Suutari and Tahvanainen 2002; Tahvanainen 2000; Woods 2003). These studies, listed chronolog- ically, covered a variety of different aspects of expatriate PM. Eshghi (1985) explored whether differences in ratings were a function of the nationality of the rater and the ratee.

Janssens (1994) investigated whether certain antecedents of international managers affected the likelihood of using parent-country stand- ards in the evaluation of their performance. Gregersen et al. (1996) explored whether various aspects of PA practices affected the perceived accuracy of the appraisal by expatriates. Petersen et al. (1996) explored the linkage between corporate expatriate HRM policies, degree of internationalization and corporate levels of performance. Caligiuri (1997) investigated whether context and technical performance dimensions of expatriate performance as evaluated by self, leader and peers are correlated with the expatriate’s desire to terminate the global assignment and the expatriate’s cross-cultural adjustment. In another study, Caligiuri (2000) investigated

Table 2. Scope of empirical studies by country and company

Country/Company* Single company Multiple companies

Multiple countries Adsit et al. (1997) Arthur et al. (1995) Caligiuri (1997) Cascio and Serapio (1991) Caligiuri (2000) Chow (1994) Caligiuri and Day (2000) Earley (1994) Devoe and Iyengar (2004) Earley and Stubbledine (1989) Earley (1986) Easterby-Smith et al. (1995) Entrekin and Chung (2001) Faulkner et al. (2002) Fraser and Zarkada-Fraser (2000) Galang (2004) Lam et al. (2002) Gregersen et al. (1996) Lam et al. (1999) Hempel (2001) Leung and Kwong (2003) Janssens (1994) Lindholm (2000) Martin and Bartol (2003) Lunnan et al. (2005) Milliman et al. (2002b) Milliman et al. (2002a) Paik et al. (2000) Neary (2002) Petersen et al. (1996) Tahvanainen (2000) Sullivan et al. (1985) Ployhart et al. (2003) Suutari and Tahvanainen (2002)

Vallance (1999) Vance et al. (1992) Woods (2003)

Single country Ahmad and Ali (2004) Amba-Rao et al. (2000) Eshghi (1985) Bai and Bennington (2005) Sekimoto (1993) Björkman and Lu (1999) Shibata (2000) Ding et al. (1997)

Farh et al. (1991) Shadur et al. (1995) Shaw et al. (1993) Shen (2004) Suliman (2001) Wright (2002) Yu and Murphy (1993)

*Four studies could not be classified.

June 2009

whether personality characteristics predicted the success of expatriates in terms of supervisor- rated expatriate performance. Caligiuri and Day (2000) investigated the relationship between self-monitoring and multidimensional performance ratings of global assignees. Tahvanainen (2000) explored how the per- formance of expatriates is managed within an MNC for different types of international assignments. Suutari and Tahvanainen (2002) studied expatriate PM practices in terms of their efficiency and related contextual factors. Martin and Bartol (2003) examined the factors that influence the success of expatriate PA systems as perceived by MNC organizations. And, finally, Woods (2003) explored critical perceptions of PM of Singaporeans and Australian expatriates.

The remaining 45 empirical studies (80%) dealt with PM from an MNC, a non-Western country, or a comparative perspective. These studies can be classified into three types: cultural studies (26 articles), studies on particular PM/PA aspects (16 articles), and case studies (three articles).

In the first type of these empirical studies national culture is the major focus. These articles can be further classified into three sub-categories:

(a) Studies exploring the extent to which PM or PA practices were present in a non- Western country and the impact of that country’s national culture on HR practices (16 articles). These studies looked at countries such as Ghana (Arthur et al. 1995), Nigeria (Arthur et al. 1995), India (Amba-Rao et al. 2000), Japan (Shibata 2000; Sekimoto 1993), Taiwan (Awasthi et al. 2001), Hong Kong and/or the People’s Republic of China (Bai and Bennington 2005; Chow 1994; Ding et al. 1997; Shaw et al. 1993; Shen 2004; Snape et al. 1998), or explored PM in a international joint-venture (Björkman and Lu 1999; Leung and Kwong 2003), mergers/acquisitions (Faulkner et al. 2002), international alliance (Cascio

and Serapio 1991) or MNC (Lindholm 2000).

(b) Studies exploring the transferability of the Western concept of PM/PA to non- Western cultures (Easterby-Smith et al. 1995; Entrekin and Chung 2001; Galang 2004; Hempel 2001; Shadur et al. 1995; Vallance 1999; Vance et al. 1992). In these studies, the US or the UK was often used as the home or HQ country (from which PM is transferred) and a non- Western country as the host country (on which PM is imposed).

(c) Studies dealing with convergence and divergence of PM across a number of countries (Paik et al. 2000; Ployhart et al. 2003; Von Glinow et al. 2002). Most of the studies that have culture as a major focus tend to be exploratory, focus heavily on Asian cultures and explain differences in PA (rather than PM) practices in terms of cultural value dimensions.

A second type of empirical study focused on a particular component of PM or PA in order to understand better the functioning of the process (16 articles). Although not the primary focus, culture is often an intervening variable in these studies. A wide variety of PM components are considered, such as the purpose of PA (Milliman et al. 2002b; Sullivan et al. 1985), performance dimensions (Fraser and Zarkada-Fraser 2000; Lam et al. 1999; Suliman 2001), motivation and efficacy (Devoe and Iyengar 2004; Earley 1994; Lam et al. 2002), raters (Adsit et al. 1997; Ahmad and Ali 2004; Ji and Karakowsky 2001; Wright 2002), modesty bias (Farh et al. 1991; Yu and Murphy 1993) and feedback (Earley 1986; Earley and Stubbledine 1989). These studies tended to be explanatory by testing hypotheses derived from theoretical frame- works and often used culture to explain observed differences.

A third type of empirical article (three) consisted of qualitative case studies describing the implementation of PM in a MNC (Lunnan et al. 2005; Neary 2002; Milliman et al. 2002a).

Employee performance management across borders

Nature of Results

The following paragraphs describe the nature of the results of the reviewed 56 empirical studies. Twenty-two studies (39%) explicitly stated their hypotheses, two studies (4%) listed propositions or post hoc hypotheses, and 32 studies (57%) did not test any hypoth- eses. Twenty-six studies (47%) framed their empirical research on international/global PM within a theoretical context, an additional 13 studies (23%) related their research to estab- lished concepts, and 17 studies (30%) used no conceptual or theoretical framework at all.

Only 14 studies (25%) were explanatory in the sense that they formally stated and discussed a theoretical framework and logically derived a set of hypotheses to be tested (Table 3).

The nature of these empirical studies reflects that research on global PM, unlike the treatment of PM in Western/domestic per- spective, is still in its infancy, it lacks research rigor, and it does not have much generalizability. It may very well be that the lack of empirical research on global PM is due to the complexity of conducting research in an international setting and the difficulty of accessing relevant international samples.

Table 3. Nature of results of empirical studies

Theoretical framework

Hypothesis formulation

Hypotheses not stated Propositions or post hoc hypotheses Hypotheses explicitly stated

Formally stated and discussed theoretical framework

Ahmad and Ali (2004) Caligiuri (2000) Hempel (2001) Caligiuri and Day (2000) Ji and Karakowsky (2001) Devoe and Iyengar (2004) Martin and Bartol (2003) Earley (1986) Milliman et al. (2002a) Earley (1994) Milliman et al. (2002b) Earley and Stubbledine (1989) Paik et al. (2000) Entrekin and Chung (2001) Suliman (2001) Eshghi (1985) Sullivan et al. (1985) Farh et al. (1991) Von Glinow et al. (2002) Janssens (1994) Wright (2002) Lam et al. (1999) Yu and Murphy (1993) Lam et al. (2002)

Lindholm (2000) Snape et al. (1998)

Relates the study to concept indicating an implied conceptual framework

Bai and Bennington (2005) Adsit et al. (1997) Amba-Rao et al. (2000) Björkman and Lu (1999) Awasthi et al. (2001) Chow (1994) Ployhart et al. (2003) Easterby-Smith et al. (1995) Shaw et al. (1993) Faulkner et al. (2002) Vance et al. (1992) Shadur et al. (1995) Vallance (1999)

No stated theoretical or conceptual framework

Arthur et al. (1995) Petersen et al. (1996) Caligiuri (1997) Cascio and Serapio (1991) Gregersen et al. (1996) Ding et al. (1997) Woods (2003) Fraser and Fraser-Zarkada (2000) Galang (2004) Leung and Kwong (2003) Lunnan et al. (2005) Neary (2002) Sekimoto (1993) Shen (2004) Shibata (2000) Suutari and Tahvanainen (2002) Tahvanainen (2000)

June 2009

Theoretical Perspectives of the Empirical Studies

Overall, many of the articles on PM across borders lacked sound conceptual or theoretical frameworks. Many studies used no theoretical framework at all, or only loosely connected their research to a conceptual framework. When linked to a conceptual or theoretical framework, they were disconnected from the conceptual articles discussed above (see summary of conceptual studies) and ignored the propositions that have been suggested in these theoretical articles. When a theoretical framework was used, it was often a cultural theory (Hofstede or cultural convergence/divergence theory), a personality theory, a managerial theory or related to previous (mainly psychological) research on PM/PA. There is little evidence of a more institutionally informed opinion with regard to international PM that is on the rise in the general international HRM literature in the US or Europe. The atheoretical nature of the empirical research on PM in international perspective may be the reason for the adoption of more exploratory rather than explanatory research designs in these studies.

Major Themes and Research Findings of the Empirical Studies

The empirical articles on cross-border PM dealt with so many different aspects of PM that summarizing the results was challenging. We organized the articles using the classifica- tions listed under empirical articles in Table 1. Within these classifications, we summarized the articles by theme. Our presentation follows a rather anecdotal approach because the wide variety of facets of PM reported in these studies makes it hard to contrast and compare the findings and does not lend itself to much systematization. In general, the literature is organized in this paper in terms of conceptual vs empirical articles. Further, the empirical articles are separated according to whether they focus on PM as applied to expatriates vs PM as it is used in various forms of MNCs.

(a) Empirical articles related to the PM of expatriates

The 11 empirical articles on expatriate PM published from 1985 to 2004 suggested a few related themes. One theme dealt with person- ality and contextual factors of raters/ratees and how they affect the accuracy of the PA ratings of expatriates. A number of findings emerged from these studies: Performance ratings of expatriates are influenced by the nationality of raters and ratees, the type of raters (whether self, leader or peer), personality characteristics of the raters and ratees, and by contextual factors. For example, in the context of Japanese expatri- ates in the US, Japanese subordinates were rated higher than American subordinates, but only when the subordinates were evaluated by a Japanese manager. This difference in rating is explained by the fact that Japanese PA criteria include process as well as result indi- cators rather than only results, as is typically the case for American PA criteria (Eshghi 1985). When contextual expatriate performance dimensions were self-rated by expatriates, they were significantly correlated with their desire to terminate the global assignment and their levels of cross-cultural adjustment. However, this was not the case with the ratings of leaders and peers of the expatriates, indicating a possible halo effect when leaders and peers rate expatriate performance (Caligiuri 1997). Of the big five personality characteristics (extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, intellectual or openness), only conscientiousness was positively related to supervisor rating of the expatriate assign- ment, inferring that expatriate assignments require a great deal of thoroughness, respon- sibility and persistence (Caligiuri 2000). Self-monitoring by expatriates had differential effects across various performance dimensions and rater context. Self-monitoring was negatively related to contextual performance ratings, positively related to expatriate assignment-specific performance ratings, and unrelated to technical performance ratings (Caligiuri and Day 2000). In addition, a

Employee performance management across borders

number of expatriate PA practices (such as a balanced set of raters from home and host countries and more frequent appraisals) related positively to the perceived accuracy of the appraisal by the expatriate, while the use of either a standardized or a customized appraisal form related negatively to perceived accuracy (Gregersen et al. 1996).

A second theme in the PM of expatriates related to the impact of certain expatriate PM practices, the standardization of PM systems, and the impact of such practices on employee perceptions. Findings here suggested that different PM practices had different efficiency outcomes and contextual factors influenced the existence and type of PM practices. The perceived efficiency of expatriate PM, from an expatriate’s perspective, increased when there were formal/written performance goals, the evaluation included a varied set of perform- ance goals (quantitative, qualitative and team goals), and the achievement of the goals was officially evaluated while on assignment (i.e. prior to repatriation). A number of contextual factors (such as size of company, international nature of the company, type of organizational structure, position and task of the expatriate and geographic location) affected the type of expatriate PM practices used. As companies grew in size and internationalized, they became more formal and used more advanced and less ethnocentric PM systems. In addition, because of individual-level factors (position and task type), a standardized system was very unlikely to be appropriate for all types of expatriate employees (Suutari and Tahvanainen 2002). Expatriate PA systems were perceived as being more successful by expatriates when they included performance expectations clarification, were regarded as being fair and were linked to expatriate career development (Martin and Bartol 2003). Expatriates (Australian expatriate managers in Singapore and Singaporean expatriate managers in Australia) were generally satisfied with the fairness and the accuracy of their PAs. There were differences in preferences for type of criteria used (hard vs soft) and for rater

involvement, yet consideration of the local environment was not found to be an important factor (Woods 2003). The use of parent- company standards was not based on the power of the expatriate, but on their geographic location, their role in terms of boundary spanning, and the extent of cultural integration. Multi- national companies seemed to use parent company standards if international managers fulfilled a high power position as boundary spanners (Janssens 1994). They differed relatively little on the types of corporate expatriate management policies and practices they used. Yet, significant differences existed across countries/regions (US, Western Europe and Japan) based on the nature of internation- alization and best practice expatriate manage- ment. In addition, there was no strong link between expatriate policies and practices and corporate performance indicators (Petersen et al. 1996). Finally, despite a company’s standard PM system intended for global use, expatriate performance was managed differently in the five different categories of expatriate assignments studied. Differences focused primarily on the location of the manager who assessed the expatriate performance goals and evaluated their performance; the type of goals set; the possibility of taking training courses while on assignment, and the clarity of the linkage between performance and pay. This showed the criticality of contingency factors when managing expatriate performance, even when a company has a standard PM system (Tahvanainen 2000).

(b) Empirical articles related to PM in MNCs

These 45 articles were organized according to their focus, into articles dealing primarily with culture, with a particular PA/PM aspect or company case studies.

1. Culture. Although each of the 26 empirical studies focused on culture, were further organ- ized into three subcategories: (a) PM in non- Western cultures, joint venture (JV), mergers

June 2009

and acquisitions (M&As) and MNCs; (b) trans- ferability of the Western concept of PM; and (c) convergence/divergence of PM practices.

(1a) PM in non-Western culture, interna- tional JVs, M&As and MNCs. The groups in this sub-category related studies on how PM is conducted in a number of important inter- national settings. A main theme in the studies on PM in various non-Western countries is whether there are any differences in PM practices as a result of contextual factors (country, culture, firm ownership, seniority). For example, in Ghana and Nigeria, PA practices had more similarities than dissimilarities with practices reported in the US literature (Arthur et al. 1995). In India, differences were found in PA practices by firm ownership (MNC, JV, private family, public sector and private investor). Organizations within the same (Indian) national culture are not homogeneous, and structural contingencies influence the HRM practice of PA (Amba-Rao et al. 2000). Imposing a performance evaluation and rewards system on US and Chinese Taiwanese nationals was effective in shifting behavior away from the collective interest, but not in the opposite, and presumably desired, direction (Awasthi et al. 2001). In Japan, employees’ age and seniority have become less important over time (1986, 1987 and 1997) in wage determination, while performance has become more influential. This indicates a transformation of the Japanese wage and PA systems over time (Shibata 2000). These studies all reinforce what is already known from the domestic literature, namely that context is important in PM. A sub-theme that has received a great deal of attention was the examination of PM practices in the Hong Kong/China context. For example, it was found that PA practices in the Chinese state-owned coal industry worked effectively but somewhat differently than was the case in that sector in the West. Cultural practices, such as mianzi (face) and guanxi (connections), and political concerns remain important in China (Bai and Bennington 2005). Cultural factors also influence the cognitive models

that managers use in PAs. Chinese managers appear more likely than Western managers to base performance reviews upon personal attributions, while UK managers are more likely to use behavior-based attributes. Important differences between HK and UK managers were also noted in a communication context (high vs low) and subordinate independ- ence. UK managers include a performance dimension such as minimum supervision required, and Chinese managers use obedience as a performance dimension (Hempel 2001). Looking at the relationship between culture, firm size, unionization and the presence of an HR department, Anglo-American firms operating in Hong Kong were more likely to use formal PA and feedback systems than local Chinese firms were. This was attributed to possible loss of face in Chinese culture. Firm size was significantly related to the use of PA. Large firms, and particularly those with an HR department, had more sophisticated PM systems. As a result, the authors concluded that culture was a relatively weak predictor of HRM practices (Shaw et al. 1993). Com- paring PA practices in Western (UK) and Chinese (Hong Kong) cultures, research findings did not support earlier results that compared US PA practices with Taiwan’s. This suggests that East–West generalizations, on the basis of two country comparisons, are difficult to make. The authors concluded that, despite some evidence that the specific objectives and the process of appraisal differ between the two countries, there was no reason to believe that PA would be less effective in Hong Kong than in Britain (Snape et al. 1998). A related question concerns what happens to PA practices of foreign-invested enterprises in China as they move from a centrally planned to a more market- oriented economy. Performance appraisal systems in this situation were hybrids; incor- porating some individualistic, Western-style HRM practices and some that were consistent with Chinese socialist ideology. However, Chinese cultural values did not appear to impede the implementation of an individual orientation to measuring and recognizing

Employee performance management across borders

performance, suggesting that economic necessities to compete in world markets and improve standards of living have overtaken cultural forces (Ding et al. 1997). The findings in these studies reinforced the importance of the context in PM (especially culture), a com- mon theme in international HR.

The empirical studies dealing with how PM is affected by international joint ventures, alliances, and mergers and acquisitions have as a main theme the localization of practices as a result of the different national and organ- izational cultures in these organizations. For example, although many HRM practices in China (including PA practices) have become more similar to those used in Western MNCs, there is still a high need in JVs to localize the methods used in PA to fit local Chinese cultural values and norms. Especially with regard to PA, the system should fit central Chinese values such as face and harmony (Björkman and Lu 1999). Because of differences in national culture and social institutional arrangements, Chinese and foreign partners in international JVs often diverge on what con- stitutes a legitimate justice rule and criteria upon which performance appraisal rules are applied (Leung and Kwong 2003). Perform- ance appraisal practices and preferences between US and Japanese partners of four international alliances (including two US–Japanese alliances) varied considerably in terms of measures, time horizon, communication style and praise. These differences were attributed to cultural factors (Cascio and Serapio 1991). There are distinct differences in HRM practices in the different countries in these studies (US, Japan, France, Germany and the UK) as a result of mergers and acquisitions and firms maintain differ- ing HRM policies (based on their countries of origin) despite their attempts to integrate. There are, however, considerable signs of con- vergence towards accepted best practices. The US system of performance-related pay is becoming increasingly adopted, even by the most collectivistic of countries (Faulkner et al. 2002).

The last of these sub-themes, how MNCs deal with PM, is an area that has received limited research attention thus far. Yet, the few studies that have been reported reinforce the need for paying attention to contextual issues. For example, it was found that various host-contextual and firm-specific factors affect how MNCs implement PA practices in China. Chinese MNCs adopt varying performance approaches to employees with different man- agerial positions and different nationalities. Also, PM in Chinese MNCs is more pro- gressive than in domestic Chinese companies. Chinese companies emphasize political attitudes and the maintenance of harmonious relationships with peers and subordinates while, in Chinese MNCs, performance record is more important than political attitude, morality and seniority. Although peer opinions are commonly considered in Chinese home performance appraisals, they are not always taken into account for expatriates or home- country nationals in MNCs (Shen 2004).

In addition, there are both similarities and differences in the relationship between PM and job satisfaction of host-country employees in MNC subsidiaries in diverse cultures. The communication of subsidiary goals and the setting of job objectives augment job satisfac- tion of host-country employees. Performance evaluation and feedback are significant predictors of job satisfaction in several coun- tries but not in India. The elements of PM concerning the individual’s training and career development are substantial predictors of job satisfaction. Evaluating performance and giving feedback is likely to be adapted to the host country (Lindholm 2000).

(1b) Transferability of Western PM practices. A second focus of global PM empirical studies deals with the transferability of Western practices and what issues need to be considered in transferring Western PA systems to non- Western cultural environments. Most of the studies focus on cultural issues, differences between Western and Asian cultures and differences within Asian cultures. The major

June 2009

Asian cultural issues center around the area of trust between supervisor and subordinate in high distance cultures, the preference for group-oriented appraisal systems to maintain harmonious relationships, the willingness to include non-performance-related criteria in collectivistic cultures, and the greater accept- ance of ambiguity and inappropriateness of using direct confrontation (Chow 1994). Comparing PA practices in UK and China, there were three marked differences with regard to the use of hierarchical judgements (vs peer and subordinate), the existence of a single formal interview (or not), and the focus on specific targets (vs broader criteria). These three observed differences can be linked directly to known cultural differences, namely the importance of harmonious relationships, face and personal obligations (Easterby-Smith et al. 1995). Comparing the PA of civil servants in three countries (Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines), the most sophisticated system was found in Singapore; Thai and Philippine cultures seemed incompatible with a PA system which seeks to appraise individual performance. The cultural practices of saving face and avoiding conflict in these cultures seemed incompatible with the Western demands for openness in PA (Vallance 1999). These studies indicated that there are strong cultural factors which limit the adoption of many Western features of HRM in Asian countries. Yet, it was also argued that many of the PA practices in the West are easily transferred to another country (such as the Philippines), despite a different culture, traditions and economic, legal and political systems. Although some of the local uniqueness must be maintained, practices were more likely to transfer when the HR department enjoyed a high status and could promote convergence of HRM practices at the firm level (Galang 2004). In addition, several studies focused on countries within seemingly similar cultural regions. For example, homogeneity among Pacific Rim countries (Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand) could not be assumed because the PA system design needs of managers in these

countries were not the same and could not be satisfied by traditional Western guiding principles. Specific cultural factors explained country differences within the region (Vance et al. 1992).

(1c) Convergence/divergence. The third theme of the global PM empirical studies related to the convergence or divergence of PM practices. For example, because of significant differ- ences in perceived PA design characteristics between four Southeast Asian countries, the possibility of convergence was rejected in spite of these countries belonging to the same culture clusters (Paik et al. 2000). Because the purposes of PA are not always well under- stood, PA systems tend to be poorly imple- mented in many countries. Context-specific issues need to be taken into account when executing PA activities, and multiple con- textual elements (or polycontextuality) are critical to understanding the universality of PA practices. Best practices do not exist independently of cultural context (Von Glinow et al. 2002). Few empirical studies on PM emphasized divergence, despite existing cultural differences. Most empirical studies indicated a trend towards convergence (that a similar performance evaluation system would be likely to apply). Yet, even convergence pro- ponents indicate the need to consider a certain degree of cultural localization. For example, although there are differences in HRM practices of Japanese and non-Japanese firms in Australia, especially with regard to PA and performance-related pay, these differences are gradually declining. In addition, the four pillars of Japanese management (permanent employment, seniority wages, enterprise unions and long-term planning) are not being transferred to Australia. Western and Japanese management approaches are moving closer together (Shadur et al. 1995). There are sig- nificant differences among three sub-samples of managers (Hong Kong managers in Hong Kong companies, Hong Kong managers in US companies, and US managers in US com- panies) with regard to several PA aspects and appraisal sources. Performance appraisal as

Employee performance management across borders

practiced in the US may not readily transfer to the Chinese culture, and modifications are needed to suit the Chinese cultural values (i.e. divergence perspective). By the same token, some aspects are accepted more universally, showing signs of convergence. There is a high feasibility of applying a relatively identical practice of supervisory appraisal as in the US to the Chinese subsidiary, yet the process has to be adapted to align with their cultural characteristics (Entrekin and Chung 2001). Although supervisors rated performance equivalent across cultures (i.e. performance ratings are largely invariant across cultures), their perceptions of job performance and the determinants of such perceptions were culture specific (i.e. the latent structure is not invariant). Provided a PA system is consistent with national culture (i.e. cultures that consider PA an acceptable HR practice), results support an imposed-etic strategy for using performance ratings (Ployhart et al. 2003).

2. PA/PM aspect. Sixteen empirical studies on international/global PM dealt with specific aspects of PM. These rather divergent studies focused on these particular components of global PM: the purpose of PA, the dimensions of performance, motivation and self-efficacy, raters, biases and feedback.

(2a) Purpose of PA. Two studies dealt with the purpose of PA and centered on whether performance evaluations accomplished their intended purposes across cultures. The ‘should be’ means were considerably higher than the ‘is now’ means on every purpose in every country, indicating that the purposes of PA are not implemented or practiced nearly as much as intended or desired, and that current implementation practices are somewhat problematic (Milliman et al. 2002b). The second study found that there were only small differences between American and Japanese managers of MNCs in terms of control processes such as responsibility, rewards and monitoring. For Japanese managers, groups were responsible for successful expected per-

formance, while individuals were responsible for unsuccessful and unexpected performance. Both American and Japanese managers offer greater rewards and more freedom from monitoring to individuals with successful performance. American managers also provided rewards for the ‘lone wolf’ or the individual who is successful but does not interact with the group (Sullivan et al. 1985).

(2b) Performance dimensions. The research question in these studies focused on whether culture affects performance dimensions used in PA. When definitions of job roles among supervisors and subordinates in a MNC operating in different countries were exam- ined, it was found that rank differences in job roles were stronger than national differences. However, employees holding positions with the same job descriptions across cultures treated certain categories of organizational citizenship behavior similarly, while other categories were treated differently, indicating that there are emic (culturally specific) and etic (universal) dimensions in the perceptions of job roles (Lam et al. 1999). In addition, national differences in cultural values about power distance also played an important role in defining job roles (Lam et al. 1999). Another study found that there are culture- related and culture-neutral performance dimensions for retail managers in Singapore and Australia. While there were no observed differences in the type of performance dimensions and the skills and traits required for the job, the importance attached to these dimensions varied significantly, showing the mediating effect of culture (Fraser and Zarkada-Fraser 2000).

(2c) Motivation and self-efficacy. Building on an extensive body of research in the US PM literature, a few studies looked at how culture may affect motivation and self-efficacy (a person’s estimate of his or her own ability to perform a task). For example, there are distinct cultural patterns of managers’ perceptions of motivation. North American managers perceived their employees to be extrinsically motivated;

June 2009

Asian managers perceived their employees to be equally motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors; and Latin American managers perceived their employees to be intrinsically motivated. However, employees perceived themselves to be intrinsically motivated. There was a strong association between managers’ perceptions of employee motivation and the appraisal of employee performance. In addition, there were cultural differences in this association, as well. North American managers’ perceptions of intrinsic motivation (exhibiting a paradox), Asian managers’ perceptions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and Latin American perceptions of intrinsic motivation were predictors of employee PA ratings. When performance ratings are compared across cultures, global organizations have an under- standing of how cultural factors affect managers’ perceptions of employee motivation and PA (Devoe and Iyengar 2004). When self-efficacy and performance were examined in relation- ship to individualism–collectivism in the context of employee training, individualism and collectivism were relevant in understanding how training influenced efficacy. Although training information provided at either an individual or group level was always better than no train- ing at all, individualists performed best when exposed to training focused at an individual level, whereas collectivists performed best when exposed to training at the group level. This study supported the contingency approach in PM training in different individu- alism–collectivism types of cultural settings (Earley 1994). Another study compared US and Hong Kong junior workers in an MNC. US participants scored higher on idiocentrism (the individual-level orientations that reflect the cultural values of individualism) and reported higher participation self-efficacy, while Hong Kong participants scored higher on allocentrism (the individual-level orientations that reflect the cultural values of collectivism) and reported higher participation collective efficacy than their US counterparts. In addition, participation efficacy can have significant positive and negative effects on employee per-

formance. Allocentrism and idocentrism are powerful individual differences that, although cultivated differently in particular societies, also have meaningful influences on behavior, irrespective of the culture (Lam et al. 2002).

(2d) Raters. Three empirical studies looked at the impact of raters in international PM. For example, different sample categories of Hong Kong companies (appraisers vs appraisees, HR vs line managers) held fundamentally different cognitions when evaluating the effectiveness of PM systems. Appraisers were more concerned with macro dimensions, while appraisees were more concerned with immediate issues. Human resources was more concerned with the PM in mechanistic terms, while line managers were more concerned with the PM system achieving the desired business results (Wright 2002). There were also differences in upward evaluation ratings of managers in an MNC by nationality of the rater. Raters from different countries rated different upward evaluation aspects differently. US and European ratings were higher than Brazilian and Asian ratings. The cultural back- grounds of raters can affect their judgments when rating a target individual’s behavior. This indicates that, if an MNC uses upward evaluation ratings of its managers without taking into account cultural differences, the results may need to be calibrated and varying interventions may be required for the different branches of the MNC (Adsit et al. 1997). Finally, an exploration of raters’ understandings of the decision-making process in PA of Malaysian public service employees showed that novice raters understood the cognitive processes involved in performance rating but had individual differences in terms of concepts and complexity. The context and geographical differences influenced the rating process (Ahmad and Ali 2004).

(2e) Biases. In line with one of the key foci of Western PM literature, the issue of biases in PA has also been examined in the inter- national context. For example, it was found

Employee performance management across borders

that behaviors that are undesirable in the values of an observer (based on their cultural orientation) are more likely to be salient to the observer when displayed in the target individual. Hence, when employees are evaluated by observers from different cultural backgrounds, they may observe the same behavior in different employees but give it different ratings, based on their biases toward the behavior and the particular group of employees. The bias is based on the cultural desirability of the behavior (Ji and Karakowsky 2001). Taiwanese sub- ordinates have a modesty bias in self-ratings on measures of actual job performance, while their Taiwanees supervisors did not evaluate their behavior more leniently than did their US counterparts (Farh et al. 1991). But a replication of Farh et al.’s study in the People’s Republic of China did not confirm the modesty bias observed in Taiwan, indicating that other relevant work values and factors at the organ- izational level may be at work. The lack of replication points to the cultural relativity of self-rating biases (Yu and Murphy 1993).

(2f) Feedback. This set of articles focused on the impact of feedback on performance related to an individual’s cultural background. For example, feedback was more strongly related to the performances of American than English workers. Hofstede’s cultural charac- teristics of power distance and uncertainty avoidance were relevant to predict the effect of feedback characteristics on performance (Earley and Stubbledine 1989). Feedback (praise and criticism) influenced performance differentially in the US and England, indicat- ing that feedback is not consistently effective in all cultural settings and that praise and criticism can be differently effective in chang- ing a worker’s performance. American and English workers differed in their responses to feedback. Praise and criticism worked com- parably to improve performance in the US, but only praise increased an English worker’s performance. The rated importance of feedback and trust in a supervisor partially mediate the effect of praise and criticism feedback and

culture on a worker’s job performance (Earley 1986).

And lastly, there were three qualitative case studies that looked at PM within companies that operated globally. The first of these case studies showed that it is difficult, but not impossible, to unify and bring into alignment a common, on-line, company-wide PM system that supported the PA, professional develop- ment and succession planning of a large company operation in 36 countries (Neary 2002). The second of these case studies demonstrated that, when managerial processes such as performance feedback are implemented across diverse cultures in a multinational enterprise, opportunities exist for cultural misunderstandings. Implementing the concepts of organizational learning can help avoid such conflicts (Milliman et al. 2002a). And the third of these studies demonstrated that, when firms introduce a foreign best practice, such as PM, into the setting of an MNC, national values present initial barriers, but supportive organizational capabilities and systems are crucial for the final shaping of the practice. For example, in the US, PM practices contain both calculative and collaborative elements, whereas in Scan- dinavia the calculative element is downplayed (Lunnan et al. 2005). This influences the ease with which the PM practices can be imple- mented in foreign subsidiaries.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This review sought to summarize the existing academic literature (refereed articles) on employee performance management as it applies across borders. Several broad conclusions can be drawn from this literature review.

First, there is a weakness in the design and substance of the research. The academic literature on PM across borders is relatively atheoretical and exploratory in nature. The empirical studies outweigh the theoretical articles in quantity. There is also a serious dis- connect between these eight theoretically based conceptual articles and the 56 empirical studies on the topic. Although multiple

June 2009

research designs have been used in the empirical studies, many of the studies that focus on cultural differences are exploratory, do not lead to the generation of research propositions and lack generalization. The few empirical studies that have ‘explanatory’ power are theoretically connected to the cognitive psychological literature or the broader Western PM literature. This may indicate the relative immaturity of the research on the topic.

Second, there are many different foci in the academic literature. Indeed, there do not appear to be any two articles that focus on the same variables or any two that overlap in their country foci. The conceptual articles develop models and propositions that are overarching and mostly untested. The empirical studies have two different streams of articles focusing either on the PM of globally mobile employees (expatriates) or on international PM, in general. This latter type of empirical article can further be subdivided into three areas: articles related to cultural differences in PM, articles focusing on particular, narrow aspects of PA from an inter- national/global perspective, and qualitative case studies of implementation of PM in a MNC.

Third, the academic literature has paid only scant attention to the PM of expatriates. Using our selection criteria, we found that only one in five of the empirical articles focused on expatriate PM. This may be due to our rigid selection criteria (refereed journal article rather than books or readers) for inclusion in the literature review. A face review of the two dozen leading international HRM and man- agement textbooks reveals that they almost exclusively deal with expatriate PM and often devote an entire chapter to the subject. Yet, they fail to cover adequately the issue of PM from a global perspective, especially from the point of view of implementing PM in an MNC.

Fourth, the literature focuses almost exclu- sively on the PA process rather than on the broader issue of the PM system. The empirical articles look at disparate components of PA and are interested mainly in cultural differences as an intervening variable. Using value dimen- sions, such as the ones proposed by Hofstede

(1980), there is evidence that culture affects PM. Hence, the recommendations of these studies often focus on the need to localize PA practices.

Fifth, it is difficult to summarize what we know about PM (or PA) across borders. The empirical studies on expatriate PM tell us that the type of PA standards used (host vs parent) is a function of location and role of the expatriate; that nationality of the rater and ratee and personality characteristics of the expatriate may affect performance ratings; that managerial interventions can be designed to improve the accuracy and efficiency of expatriate PA; and that different expatriate contexts may call for different performance evaluations and result in different efficiencies.

The cultural studies on PM from an inter- national/global perspective tell us that HR practices, such as PA, are present in some different non-Western countries (not many have been studied) but that cultural and contextual factors create differences between and within countries. Although the limited research indicates that PA practices may be converging, there is still a great deal of diver- gence (in the few countries studied), Within an MNC, the notion of crossvergence may be more applicable when it comes to PA prac- tices. The use of standardized PA principles with local cultural and contextual adaptation is worthy of further research. Finally, China is a preferred locale for many of the empirical studies – and cultural values, in China, such as face, harmony and power distance were found to affect PA practices. It seems reason- able to generalize from these few studies to the greater environment that cultural values must affect the efficacy of various PM practices. However, this review suggests that we really do not have the verified, research-based, know- ledge to support those conclusions. In addition, the empirical studies that focus on particular aspects of global PM are even more difficult to generalize, because they provide us with unconnected knowledge regarding so many different elements of the PA process.

A number of recommendations flow from this literature survey. First, we recommend

Employee performance management across borders

that studying PM across borders should not necessarily start from a US or Western point of view. Because of the inherent Anglo and US-centric bias, as a result of the selection criteria (explained in our Method section), we may have excluded valuable research material on the topic. It seems imperative that future research broadens the pool of studies from non-Western sources.

Expanded rigorous research should also include additional books on the topic within the broad fields of international and compara- tive HR. Academic researchers from various countries should also engage in international debates on the topic and co-operate on joint research (such as the models provided through the Cranfield studies and GLOBE project). This will not only allow the testing of the Western concept of PM in other contexts, but bring non-Western points of view into the debate.

Second, we recommend that, by expanding the pool of research on this topic, a more sys- tematic review of the existing empirical work (i.e. comparing and contrasting differing findings in specific elements of international/ global PM) be pursued to augment the rather anecdotal review of the empirical studies presented in this paper.

Third, we recommend that future research on PM across borders link empirical data to theoretical frameworks that go beyond an examination of purely cultural elements. The various conceptual models that have been pro- posed each add value to our understanding of the topic. Yet, there is a need to develop an overall conceptual framework that looks at the different stages of the PM process (i.e. design, implementation and evaluation) rather than just the appraisal of employees. There is a need to look at PM across borders from a strategic HRM perspective, using a variety of existing management theories as suggested by Wright and McMahon (1992).

Fourth, we recommend the use of a triangu- lation of different designs and methods. Qualitative exploratory research derives its strength, not from testing hypotheses, but

rather from organizing the data, developing propositions and building theory. Quantitative research derives its strength from testing hypotheses and refining our theoretical models. Both methods can add value to this rather underdeveloped research topic.

Fifth, we recommend that academic research results be ‘translated’ into actionable terms for use by global HR practitioners in MNCs. Academic researchers should, for example, explore to what extent a ‘standardized’ global approach to PM can be used effectively in an MNC and which design, implementation and evaluation features of the PM process should be localized.

Finally, we recommend that the study of PM across borders become more interdiscipli- nary. As the concept of employee performance management is being broadened and strategically linked to overall organizational performance, research will need to include other manage- ment disciplines (psychology, organizational behavior, human resources, strategy, accounting, etc.).

This paper sought to provide a structure to the diverse literature on international PM. We believe that this is a valuable endeavor as it will, hopefully, fuel more related and focused research. Future research on PM across borders should be strategically focused in order to gain a better understanding of the complexity of the topic and to help close the gaps exposed by this literature review.

Notes

1 An earlier version of this paper entitled, ‘What we know and don’t know about performance manage- ment from an international/global perspective: A review and analysis of empirical research,’ was accepted for presentation at the 2006 Annual Conference of the Academy of Management. The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of the three peer reviewers and Adrian Wilkinson for his insightful suggestions.

2 Address for correspondence: Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, 900 State Street, Salem, OR 97301, USA; e-mail: [email protected]

June 2009

References

Adsit, D.J., London, M., Crom, S. and Jones, D. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in upward ratings in a multinational company. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 385– 401.

Ahmad, R. and Ali, N.A. (2004). Performance appraisal decision in Malaysian public service. International Journal of Public Sector Manage- ment, 17, 48–64.

Amba-Rao, S.C., Petrick, J.A., Gupta, J.N.D. and Von der Embse, T.J. (2000). Comparative perform- ance appraisal practices and management values among foreign and domestic firms in India. Inter- national Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 60–89.

Arthur, W. Jr, Woehr, A., Adebowale, D.J. and Strong, M. (1995). Human resource management in West Africa: practices and perspectives. Inter- national Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 347–366.

Awasthi, V.N., Chow, C.W. and Wu, A. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in the behavioral con- sequences of imposing performance evaluation and reward systems: an experimental investigation. International Journal of Accounting, 36, 291–309.

Aycan, Z. (2005). The interplay between cultural and institutional contingencies in human resource man- agement practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1083–1119.

Bai, X. and Bennington, L. (2005). Performance appraisal in the Chinese state-owned coal industry. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 7, 275–287.

Björkman, I. and Lu, Y. (1999). The management of human resources in Chinese–Western ventures. Journal of World Business, 34, 306–324.

Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B., Mendenhall, M.E. and Stroh, L.K. (1999). Globalizing People Through International Assignments. Readings, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Caligiuri, P.M. (1997). Assessing expatriate success: beyond just being there. New Approaches to Employee Management, 4, 117–140.

Caligiuri, P.M. (2000). The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate desire to terminate the assignment and supervisor- rated performance. Personnel Psychology, 53, 67– 88.

Caligiuri, P.M. and Day, D.V. (2000). Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual, and

assignment-specific performance. Group and Organization Management, 25, 154–175.

Cascio, W.F. and Serapio, M.G. Jr (1991). Human resource systems in an international alliance: the undoing of a done deal. Organizational Dynamics, 19, 63–74.

Chow, I.H.S. (1994). An opinion survey of performance appraisal practices in Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource Management, 32, 67–79.

Cyr, D.J. (1995). The Human Resource Challenge of International Joint Ventures. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Davis, D.D. (1998). International performance meas- urement and management. In Smither, J.W. (ed.), Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 95–131.

Den Hartog, D.N., Boselie, P. and Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management: a model and research agenda. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 556–569.

Devoe, S.E. and Iyengar, S.S. (2004). Managers’ theories of subordinates: a cross-cultural examination of manager perceptions of motivation and appraisal of performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 47–61.

Ding, D., Fields, D. and Akhtar, S. (1997). An empir- ical study of human resource management policies and practice in foreign-invested enterprise in China: the case of Shenzen special economic zone. International Journal of Human Resource Manage- ment, 8, 595–613.

Earley, P. and Stubbledine, P. (1989). Intercultural assessment of performance feedback. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 161–181.

Earley, P.C. (1986). Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and work performance: an examination of feedback in the United States and England. Journal of Management, 12, 457–473.

Earley, P.C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 39, 89–117.

Easterby-Smith, M., Malina, D. and Yuan, L. (1995). How culture sensitive is HRM? A comparative analysis of practice in Chinese and UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Manage- ment, 6, 31–59.

Entrekin, L. and Chung, Y. (2001). Attitudes towards different sources of executive appraisal: a comparison of Hong Kong Chinese and American managers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 965–987.

Employee performance management across borders

Eshghi, G. (1985). Nationality bias and performance evaluations in multinational corporations. National Academy of Management Proceedings, 93–97.

Farh, J., Dobbins, G. and Cheng, B. (1991). Cultural relativity in action: a comparison of self ratings made by Chinese and US workers. Personnel Psychology, 44, 29–47.

Faulkner, D., Pitkethly, R. and Child, J. (2002). International mergers and acquisitions in the UK 1985–94: a comparison of national HRM practices. International Journal of Human Resource Manage- ment, 13, 106–122.

Feng, Y., Foster, S. and Heling, G. (2005). Study on the Impact of Societal Cultural Orientations on Employee Performance Evaluation Practices in Business Organization. Paper presented at the Partners’ Conference, Maastricht School of Management.

Fraser, C. and Zarkada-Fraser, A. (2000). Measuring the performance of retail managers in Singapore and Australia. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 28, 228–242.

Fulkersen, J.R. and Schuler, R.S. (1992). Managing worldwide diversity at Pepsi-Cola international. In Jackson, S.S. (ed.), Diversity in the Workplace: Human Resource Initiatives. New York: Guilford, pp. 248–276.

Galang, M.C. (2004). The transferability question: comparing HRM practices in the Philippines with the US and Canada. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1207–1233.

Gregersen, H.B., Hite, J.M. and Black, J.S. (1996). Expatriate performance appraisal in U.S. multina- tional firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 711–738.

Guest, D.E. (1997). Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda. Inter- national Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 263–276.

Harvey, M. (1997). Focusing the international personnel performance appraisal process. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4, 41–62.

Hempel, P.S. (2001). Differences between Chinese and Western managerial views of performance. Personnel Review, 30, 203–226.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Janssens, M. (1994). Evaluating international managers’ performance: parent company standards as control mechanisms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5, 853–873.

Ji, L. and Karakowsky, L. (2001). Do we see eye- to-eye? Implications of cultural differences for cross-cultural management research and practices. Journal of Psychology, 135, 501–518.

Johnson, J.W. and Olson, A.M. (1996). Cross- National Differences in Perceptions of Supervisor Performance. Paper presented at the Annual Con- ference of the Society of Industrial and Organiza- tional Psychology, San Diego, CA.

Lam, S.S.K., Chen, X.P. and Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: the moderation effect of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 905–914.

Lam, S.S.K., Hui, C. and Law, K.S. (1999). Organiza- tional citizenship behavior: comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four interna- tional samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 594–601.

Leung, K. and Kwong, J.Y.Y. (2003). Human resource management practices in international joint ventures in mainland China: a justice analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 85– 105.

Lindholm, N. (2000). National culture and perform- ance management in MNC subsidiaries. Interna- tional Studies of Management and Organization, 29, 45–66.

Lindholm, N., Tahvanainen, M. and Björkman, I. (1999). Performance appraisal of host country employees: western MNCs in China. In Brewster, C. and Harris, H. (eds), International HRM: Con- temporary Issues in Europe. London: Routledge, pp. 143–159.

Lunnan, R., Lervik, J.E., Traavik, L., Nilsen, S., Amdam, R.P. and Hennestad, B. (2005). Global transfer of management practices across nations and MNC subcultures. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 77–80.

Martin, D. and Bartol, K. (2003). Factors influencing expatriate performance appraisal system success: an organizational perspective. Journal of Interna- tional Management, 9, 115–132.

Mendonca, M. and Kanungo, R.N. (1996). Impact of culture on performance. International Journal of Manpower, 17, 65–69.

Mercer Travik, L.E. and Lunnan, R. (2005). Is standardization of performance appraisal perceived as fair across cultures? Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Honolulu, HI.

Milliman, J.F., Nason, S., Love, K., Kim, N.H. and Huo, P. (1995). An empirical study of performance

June 2009

appraisal practices in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. Academy of Management Journal Best Papers Proceedings, 182–186.

Milliman, J., Nason, S., Gallagher, E., Huo, P., Von Glinow, M.A. and Lowe, K.B. (1998). The impact of national culture on human resource management practices: the case of performance appraisal. Advances in International Comparative Manage- ment, 12, 157–183.

Milliman, J., Nason, S., Zhu, C. and De Cieri, H. (2002b). An exploratory assessment of the purposes of performance appraisal in North and Central America and the Pacific Rim. Human Resource Management, 41, 87–102.

Milliman, J., Taylor, S. and Czaplewski, A.J. (2002a). Cross-cultural performance feedback in multina- tional enterprises: an opportunity for organiza- tional learning. Human Resource Planning, 25, 29–43.

Neary, B. (2002). Creating a company-wide, on-line, performance management system: a case study at TRW Inc. Human Resource Management, 41, 491– 498.

Paik, Y., Vance, C. and Stage, H.D. (2000). A test of assumed cluster homogeneity for performance appraisal in four Southeast Asian countries. Inter- national Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 736–750.

Petersen, R.B., Sargent, T., Napier, N.K. and Shim, W.S. (1996). Corporate expatriate HRM policies, internationalization, and performance in the world’s largest MNC’s. Management International Review, 36, 215–230.

Ployhart, R.E., Wiechman, D., Schmitt, N., Saccco, J.M. and Rogg, K. (2003). The cross-cultural equivalence of job performance ratings. Human Performance, 16, 49–79.

Schuler, R.S., Fulkerson, J.R. and Dowling, P.J. (1991). Strategic performance measurement and management in multinational corporations. Human Resource Management, 30, 365–392.

Sekimoto, M. (1993). Performance appraisal in Japan: past and future. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 20, 52–58.

Shadur, M.A., Rodwell, J. and Bamber, G.J. (1995). The adoption of international best practices in a Western culture: East meets West. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6, 735– 757.

Shaw, J.B., Tang, S.F.Y., Fisher, C.D. and Kirkbride, P.S. (1993). Organizational and environmental factors related to human resource management

practices in Hong Kong: a cross-cultural expanded replication. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4, 237–250.

Shen, J. (2004). International performance appraisals: policies, practices and determinants in the case of Chinese multinational companies. International Journal of Manpower, 25, 547–564.

Shibata, H. (2000). The transformation of the wage and performance appraisal system in a Japanese firm. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11, 294–313.

Snape, E., Thompson, D., Yan, Ka-Ching, F. and Redman, T. (1998). Performance appraisals and culture: practice and attitudes in Hong Kong and Great Britain. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, 841–861.

Suliman, A. (2001). Work performance: is it one thing or many things? The multidimensionality of per- formance in a Middle Eastern context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 1049–1061.

Sullivan, J., Suzuki, T. and Kondo, Y. (1985). Mana- gerial theories and the performance control process in Japanese and American work groups. Academy of Management Proceedings, 98–102.

Sully De Luque, M.F. and Sommer, S.M. (2000). The impact of culture on feedback-seeking behavior: an integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 29–49.

Suutari, V. and Tahvanainen, M. (2002). The antecedents of performance management among Finnish expa- triates. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13, 55–75.

Tahvanainen, M. (2000). Expatriate performance management: the case of Nokia telecommuni- cations. Human Resource Management, 39, 267– 275.

Tziner, A., Murphy, K.R. and Cleveland, J.N. (2005). Contextual and rater factors affecting rating behavior. Group Organization Management, 30, 4–5.

Vallance, S. (1999). Performance appraisal in Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines: a cultural perspective. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 58, 78–95.

Vance, C.M., McClaine, S., Boje, D.M. and Stage, H.D. (1992). An examination of the transferability of traditional performance appraisal principles across cultural boundaries. Management Interna- tional Review, 32, 313–326.

Von Glinow, M.A., Drost, E. and Teagarden, M. (2002). Convergence of IHRM practices: lessons

Employee performance management across borders

learned from a globally distributed consortium of theory and practice. Human Resource Manage- ment, 41, 123–141.

Woods, P. (2003). Performance management of Australian and Singaporean expatriates. Interna- tional Journal of Manpower, 24, 517–534.

Wright, P.M. and McMahon, G.C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic human resource manage- ment. Journal of Management, 18, 295–320.

Wright, R.P. (2002). Perceptual dimensions of per- formance management systems in the eyes of different sample categories. International Journal of Management, 19, 184–193.

Yu, J. and Murphy, K.R. (1993). Modesty bias in self- rating of performance: a test of cultural relativity hypotheses. Personnel Psychology, 15, 357–363.

Lisbeth Claus is from Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, 900 State Street, Salem, OR 97301, USA. Dennis Briscoe is from the University of San Diego, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110-2492, USA.