determinants of employee willingness to use feedback for performance improvement: cultural and...

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 7:4 December 1996

Determinants of employee willingness to usefeedback for performance improvement:cultural and organizational interpretations

Jenny S. Y. Lee and Syed Akhtar

Abstract This study was designed to identify determinants of employee willingnessto use feedbaek for performance improvement. The proposed determinants includedobjectives of appraisal, supervisor's knowledge of subordinate's job, agreed plan forperformance improvement, trust in supervisor and perceived fairness and accuracyof performance evaluation. Data were collected in two phases. The first phase con-sisted of a questionnaire survey among 100 Hong Kong Chinese employees workingin public and private sector organizations. Regression analysis of questionnaire dataindicated that agreed plan for performance improvement and perceived fairness andaccuracy of performance evaluation had significant positive effects on employeewillingness to use performance feedback. In the second phase, focus group inter-views were held to triangulate survey findings. Interview data suggested that Chinesecultural characteristics of paternalism and personalism influenced the underlyingdynamics of the evaluation process. Findings are interpreted in the context ofemployees' cultural and organizational background.

Keywords Performance evaluation, feedback, trust, fairness and accuracy, culture

Introduction

In a review of the literature on perfontiance evaluation, Bretz, Milkovich andRead (1992) observed that perceived fairness of performance evaluation and con-cern for improving future performance of employees were the two most impor-tant appraisal issues identified by managers. Although the two issues appear tobe interrelated, researchers have mostly focused attention on the first issue (Fulk,Brief and Barr, 1985; Greenberg, 1986; Ilgen, Fisher and Taylor, 1979; Landy,Barnes and Murphy, 1978; Lawler, 1967). For instance, Landy et al (1978)tested a model predicting that perceived fairness and accuracy of performanceevaluation are dependent upon five factors including presence of a performanceevaluation programme, frequency of evaluation, supervisor's knowledge of sub-ordinate's job, opportunity to express feelings and development of a performanceimprovement plan. Fulk et al. (1985) cross-validated this model accounting for31 per cent of the variance among 198 research and development engineers of alarge electronics firm. They included trust in supervisor as an additional factor inan extended model to predict perceived fairness and accuracy of performanceevaluation. Their results indicated that a trimmed model consisting of supervi-sor's knowledge of subordinate's job, plans related to performance improvementand trust in supervisor had greater validity because it was able to explain 46 percent of the variance in the same sample.

0985-5192 © Chapman & Hall 1996

Employee willingness to use feedback for performance improvement 879

Notwithstanding the empirical support for the combined model of Landy et al.(1978) and Fulk et al. (1985), there are several issues which may constrain itsapplicability to managerial practice and generalizability across different situa-tions. First, the combined model does not deal directly with the managerial con-cern for improving future performance of employees. One may argue that themodel addresses this concern by way of including performance improvementplan as one of its elements. However, it is one thing to have a plan and yetanother thing to be willing to act on it. In other words, managers may want toknow what factors affect employee willingness to use feedback for performanceimprovement. The second issue relates to organizational objectives of perfor-mance evaluation. It is arguable whether organizational objectives of salaryreview and performance improvement can go together to influence positivelyemployee willingness to use feedback (Bretz et al, 1992). Third, there is a sub-stantial theoretical question about the extent to which a Western model of per-formance evaluation can apply in an Eastern culture. For example. Redding andWong (1986: 285) have observed that in the area of management by objectivesthe Western ideals of individual competitiveness, personal achievement, personalaccountability and open confrontation 'clash with many of the perceptions andfeelings about relationships in a society such as the Chinese, which is sensitive tocollectivity'. The present study therefore had two aims. First, it aimed at extend-ing the combined model of Landy et al. (1978) and Fulk et al. (1985) by includ-ing organizational objectives of salary review and performance improvement asantecedent factors and by considering employee willingness to use feedback as anoutcome of performance evaluation. Second, it examined the validity of thismodel in the context of Hong Kong Chinese employees. Figure 1 presents graph-ically the proposed model and the following paragraphs explain its rationale.

Perceived Fairnessand Accuracy

+

+

Salary Review XPerformance Improvement

Supervisor's Knowledge

Agreed Performance Plan

Trust in Supervisor

+

+

Willingness toUse Feedback

/

Figure 1 The proposed model of employee willingness to use feedback for per-formance improvement

880 Jenny S. Y. Lee and Syed Akhtar

Determinants of employee willingness to use feedback

Locke, Cartledge and Koeppel (1968) believed that performance feedback canserve as a motivational function because it clarifies how an individual shouldbehave and perform. Annett (1969) stated performance feedback has an incentivefunction in that it increases motivation by acting as a promise for futurerewards. Ashford and Cummings (1983) found that performance feedback helpsemployees to reduce uncertainty about how behaviours are evaluated by others,to assess their personal competencies without threatening self-esteem and to clar-ify relative importance of various goals within work settings. It is clear fromthese studies that feedback can be an important tool for improving employeeperformance but they do not address the issue of employee willingness to usefeedback. Lawler (1967) has, however, suggested that employees are likely to bewilling to use feedback when they perceive that the evaluation system is fair andfeedback is an accurate portrayal of their performance. This means that per-ceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation and its determinants inthe combined model of Landy et al. (1978) and Fulk et al. (1985) can also beconsidered determinants of employee willingness to use feedback.

At the same time, the impact of these determinants on employee willingness touse feedback would have to be viewed in terms of the cultural background ofemployees. Although cultures vary on several dimensions (see Hofstede, 1980,for details), two dimensions of the Chinese culture particularly relevant to thisstudy are paternalism and personalism as proposed by Redding (1990). In anorganizational context, characteristic features of paternalism include, amongother things, dependence of subordinates as a mind-set, personalized loyaltywhich fosters employee willingness to conform and benevolent authoritarianism.A paternalistic culture has much in common with a high power distance culturedescribed by Hofstede (1980). In a high power distance culture members acceptinequality in power distribution as natural. Similarly, personalism is character-ized by an emphasis on interpersonal trust, harmonious relations, avoidance ofconflict and sensitivity to 'face'. To maintain a good 'face' means to be a decenthuman being and to honour obligations in one's social transactions. Such char-acteristics can be seen as part of Hofstede's (1980) conceptualization of a collec-tivist culture where members predominantly perceive themselves to be connectedwith others through reciprocal relations. It is interesting to note that, inHofstede's (1980) study. Hong Kong employees obtained high scores on bothpower distance and collectivism.

Within the framework of the Chinese cultural characteristics described here, itis possible that the proposed determinants of employee willingness to use feed-back may acquire meanings different from those obtained in the Western culture.Consequently, direction of their impact could also vary, i.e., some determinantsmay have positive impact while others may have negative impact. Among posi-tive determinants, one can include supervisor's knowledge about subordinate'sjob, trust in supervisor and fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation.Bond has observed that 'Hong Kong managers show initiating structure byresponding to suggestions for improvements, meeting frequently with subordi-nates, encouraging coworkers to help one another, and discussing the subordi-nate's career and plans' (Bond, 1991: 79). Thus, in a paternalistic culture,subordinates would develop an expectation that their supervisors should not only


know what is going on while they are doing their jobs but also get involved intheir personal problems. To the extent that supervisors are seen fulfilling thisexpectation, it would positively affect perceived fairness and accuracy of perfor-mance evaluation and employee willingness to use feedback. Further, sensitivityto interpersonal relations underscores the importance of trust in a personalisticand a coUectivist culture, and its positive role in performance evaluation andfeedback. In a culture characterized by personalism, the meaning of perceivedfairness and accuracy of performance evaluation would lie not so much in a neu-tral and an objective system of performance standards as in a supervisor's use ofsuch a system to reward loyal subordinates. When fairness and accuracy of per-formance evaluation are interpreted in this way by subordinates, as they tend todo in a personalistic culture, it can have a positive impact on their willingness toact on feedback. However, seeking an agreement on performance goals wouldbring supervisors and employees face-to-face with each other, raising the possi-bility of interpersonal conflict and confrontation. Such a situation would beincongruent with the norms of paternalism, high power distance and collectivism.In this sense, face-to-face opportunity to discuss plans may have negative effectson perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation and employee will-ingness to use feedback.

Organizational objectives of performance evaluation could also affectemployee willingness to use feedback. Organizations use performance data tomeet several objectives. Such objectives include decisions on salary reviews, pro-motions, transfers, assessment of training needs and performance improvement(Kane and Lawler, 1979; Meyer, Kay and French, 1965). In a survey of 106employees working in personnel departments of different organizations,Cleveland, Murphy and Williams (1989) have reported that the highest use ofperformance data was in the areas of salary administration and performancefeedback. This finding suggests that supervisors have to play two conflicting roles- of judge and counsellor. They may want to discuss job-related problems buthave to be cautioned not to jeopardize a possible pay raise (Fletcher andWilliams, 1985). They may sometimes inflate the performance rating which istied to a yearly inflation on the salary increment instead of assessing perfor-mance against agreed objectives (Deets and Tyler, 1986). Longenecker, Sims, andGioia (1987), in a field research study, found that some supervisors manipulateperformance data for political reasons to achieve their private agenda such as tocontrol merit increase expenditures, to avoid a confrontation with subordinateswith whom supervisors have had trouble recently or to send a message to arebellious subordinate about who is in charge. Supervisors tend to believe thatthese are discretionary actions which help them to manage people more effec-tively. Wayne and Ferris (1990) have observed that political behaviour can affectsupervisors' objectivity and may sometimes result in more favourable perfor-mance ratings than would otherwise be expected.

These studies suggest that heightened political activities of both supervisorsand subordinates may degenerate into tensions and conflicts between them whenperformance evaluation is simultaneously used for organizational objectives ofsalary review and performance feedback. It can thus be hypothesized that the useof performance evaluation to meet objectives of salary review and performanceimprovement simultaneously has a negative impact on both employee percep-tions of fairness and accuracy and employee willingness to use feedback. It may


especially hold true in the context of Hong Kong where managers would like tomaintain harmonious relations by using compromise and avoidance as styles ofhandling conflicts (Kirkbride, Tang and Westwood, 1991). If this hypothesisturns out to be true then we may agree with Randell, Packard and Slater's(1984) proposal to divide the use of performance evaluation into three broad cat-egories, namely reward reviews, potential reviews and performance reviews. Theymaintained that an evaluation system should attempt to satisfy only one of themat a particular point in time. Thus, when the objective of performance evaluationis performance improvement, supervisors can discuss job-related problems withtheir subordinates freely without any concern for administrative constraints.

Method

This study was carried out in two phases. The first phase consisted of a question-naire survey to collect factual and attitudinal data on performance evaluationfrom Hong Kong employees working in different organizations. In the secondphase, focus group interviews were held to discuss personal experiences in perfor-mance evaluation and to share meanings attributed to findings obtained from thefirst phase. This was done to triangulate survey results (see Morgan, 1988, foruses of focus groups). Details of each phase are given below.

Phase I

Sample The survey was conducted among 120 working people who were regis-tered for continuing education programmes in two universities of Hong Kong.Of these, 100 respondents were included in the sample on the basis of two crite-ria: (a) they had more than one year's working experience with their currentorganizations, and (b) their employing organizations had a formal system of per-formance evaluation.

Over 60 per cent respondents belonged to large organizations. The sample rep-resented 47 per cent public sector and 53 per cent private sector employees.Eighty-three per cent worked in service organizations, 11 per cent in manufactur-ing and 6 per cent in sales. The number of male and female respondents wasequal. Fifty-five per cent were in the age range 21-30 years. The level of educa-tion varied from high school certificate to postgraduate degree. Twenty-four percent had passed high school examination, 33 per cent had post-secondary educa-tion and 43 per cent were graduates and postgraduates. Thirty-three per cent hadworked for five years or less, 35 per cent for ten years and the rest for more thanten years. Twenty-eight per cent were non-supervisory employees, 26 per centhad supervisory positions and 46 per cent occupied junior to senior managementpositions.

Data collection Data were collected through a questionnaire. Information wasobtained on background factors consisting of respondents' age, gender, educa-tion, work experience, position and nature and type of their employing organiza-tions. Two response categories, i.e., 'yes' and 'no', were used to elicit informationon organizational objectives of performance evaluation (salary review, perfor-mance improvement, promotion, job transfer and training) and to indicate pres-ence or absence of an agreed plan for performance improvement. These responsecategories were scored one for 'no' and two for 'yes'. Items were devised to


reflect supervisor's knowledge of subordinate's job ('My supervisor is knowledge-able about the kind of job I am doing') and trust in supervisor's evaluation of anindividual's performance ('I do not trust my supervisor's evaluation of my per-formance') on 6-point scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.Scores on the item measuring trust were reversed so that a higher score reflecteda greater amount of trust. A 6-point scale consisting of two items was developedto measure perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. The itemsincluded were: (a) 'My performance evaluation has been fair under my currentsupervisor' and (b) 'My performance evaluation has been accurate under my cur-rent supervisor'. Similarly, another scale comprising two items measured willing-ness to use performance feedback: (a) 'I am willing to use performance feedbackfor improving my future job performance' and (b) 'I have actually made use ofthe feedback from performance evaluation to improve my job performance.'Cronbach alphas for these two scales were 0.81 and 0.70, respectively.

Phase H

Focus group interviews Four focus groups were organized to represent the pub-lic and private sector organizations from which survey respondents had beendrawn in the first phase. Each group consisted of seven to eight members.Participants were asked to discuss the survey results keeping in view their owncultural background and personal experiences in performance evaluation. Thetwo authors served as facilitators. The session lasted for about an hour.

Survey results

Test of the combined model

Data were analysed using stepwise regression to test the combined model of Landyet al. (1978) and Fulk et al. (1985). Results presented in Table 1 indicate thatsupervisor's knowledge about subordinate's job, agreed performance plan andtrust in supervisor had positive effects on perceived fairness and accuracy of per-formance evaluation. The three factors together accounted for 52 per cent of thevariance. Supervisor's knowledge about subordinate's job appeared to be the mostimportant determinant of perceived fairness and accuracy, accounting for 37 percent of the variance. These results confirm the validity of the combined model.

Table 1 Stepwise regression of perceived fairness and accuracy on predictor variables

Predictor variables R^ b SE B F

Supervisor's knowledge aboutsubordinate's job

Agreed performance planTrust in supervisor

Notesb = Unstandardized Regression, SE = Standard Error, B = Beta Weight.* p < 0.001.

0.370.110.04

0.520.620.26

0.090.150.08

0.460.300.26

52.46*40.91*33.21*


Test of the proposed model

Variables involved in the proposed model are shown in Figure 1. Univariateanalysis of the data indicates that salary review and performance improvementwere the most prevalent objectives of performance evaluation. The two objectivesreceived ratings of 84 per cent and 61 per cent, respectively.

Background variables were controlled to test the proposed model using step-wise regression analysis. Initial results obtained from this analysis showed thatneither background variables nor simultaneous use of the two objectives of per-formance evaluation had any significant impact on perceived fairness and accu-racy and employee willingness to use performance feedback. These variables weretherefore deleted from further analysis.

Results of the subsequent analysis are presented in Table 2. It can be observedthat agreed performance plan and perceived fairness and accuracy contributedsignificantly and positively to employee willingness to use performance feedback,accounting for 18 per cent and 4 per cent of the variance, respectively. However,supervisor's knowledge about subordinate's job, which tends to be a strong pre-dictor of perceived fairness and accuracy, and trust in supervisor had no signifi-cant effect on employee willingness to use performance feedback. The proposedmodel thus received partial support.

Table 2 Stepwise regression of employee wiliingness to use feedback on predictor vari-ables

Predictor variables

Agreed performance planPerceived fairness and accuracy

Notesb = unstandardized regression, SE =* p < 0.001.

R^

0.180.04

standard error, B

b

0.600.20

= beta

SE

0.180.09

weight.

B

0.350.24

F

20.74*13.67*

Focus group observations

Presented here are some dominant observations which emerged from focus groupinterviews:

1 It was no surprise to participants in the focus groups that the combined modelof Landy et al. (1978) and Fulk et al. (1985) should work well among HongKong employees. They observed that Hong Kong employees working in largeorganizations were experiencing a gradual shift in their public expression ofcultural values. They were more likely to adopt Western cultural valuesbecause their organizations had formal appraisal systems which emphasizeindividual achievement and personal accountability. These values had becomepart of the very fabric of employment relations in both public and private sec-tor organizations. Among private sector organizations, performance evaluationwas perceived to be part of an organizational effort to remain competitive byway of terminating the services of those employees who were unable to fulfil


their annual plan for performance. Among public sector organizations, it wasseen as a mechanism to increase personal accountability among employees. Ineither case, participants saw performance evaluation as a necessary evil.

2 Although Western values of individual achievement and personal accountabil-ity were embedded in employment relations, some Chinese cultural valuesinfluenced the dynamics underlying the evaluation process. This became evi-dent from the meanings which participants attributed to different elements ofthe combined model of performance evaluation. For instance, participants hada context-specific meaning for supervisor's knowledge of subordinate's job.They mentioned that in the Chinese cultural context supervisors were expectedto provide not only professional guidance but also emotional security by look-ing after the interests of their subordinates. Apparently, this supervisory stylemakes a substantial positive contribution to perceived fairness and accuracy ofperformance evaluation in the Chinese culture. The reason given was thatsupervisors who show interest in the problems of their subordinates havegreater legitimacy as judges of performance than those who are simply con-cerned with outcomes in an impersonal way.

3 They further observed that the Chinese culture places heavy emphasis on per-sonal relationships. It was therefore expected that trust between supervisorsand subordinates would, as it did in the present case, influence positively per-ceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation.

4 Similarly, consider the factor of agreed plan of performance. In a Western cul-ture this may connote involvement and participation of subordinates in goalsetting. To participants in the focus groups this however meant saying 'yes' toand obeying the demands of one's supervisor. It did not necessarily mean thatsupervisors in such a situation would be insensitive to the opinions of theirsubordinates. In situations of superior-subordinate conflict, supervisors wouldseek a compromise rather than risk disloyalty. At times when compromise wasnot possible, subordinates would either put up with the situation or quietlyleave the organization.

5 In the proposed model, the factor of agreed performance plan contributed asubstantial amount of variance to employee willingness to use performancefeedback. Participants explained this finding in terms of the value Hong Kongemployees attach to maintenance of 'face' in superior-subordinate relations.Once an action plan was agreed upon, subordinates would feel morally obligedto see it through or else risk humiliation. Employee willingness to act on feed-back was therefore seen not so much grounded in an individual's need for per-sonal accomplishment as it was rooted in attaining moral worth and stayingtrustworthy.

6 Participants observed that perceived fairness and accuracy of performanceevaluation was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for employees to acton performance feedback. The reason was that even though an employee mayperceive his or her performance evaluation as fair and accurate and that he orshe may receive a good performance rating, in reality supervisors had little dis-cretion to reward high performers substantially differently from average per-formers in terms of monetary incentives. Participants suggested that monetaryincentives together with promotion and training opportunities could prove tobe positive predictors of performance improvement.


Discussion

Survey resuhs suggest strong support for Landy et at. (1978) and Fulk et al.'s(1985) combined model of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evalu-ation. The model accounted for 52 per cent of the variance which is 10 per centhigher than that reported by Fulk et al. (1985). Although this model appears tobe equally valid among Western and Hong Kong employees, focus group obser-vations indicate that there are some important cultural differences in meaningsattached to its three elements. In an individualist culture, supervisor's knowledgeof subordinate's job may refer to the credibility of supervisor's professional com-petence and effectiveness of span of control. Trust in supervisor could be inter-preted more in terms of the supervisor's objective application of performancestandards than in terms of his or her personalization of superior-subordinaterelations. The positive relationship between agreed performance plan and per-ceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation among subordinatesbelonging to low power distance cultures may mean that subordinates in suchcultures seek participation and involvement in goal setting and that they canvoice their dissent without undue fear of negative consequences.

In the Chinese cultural context, supervisor's knowledge of subordinate's jobseems to connote subordinates' expectations of a close supervisory style, emo-tional support and frequent contact with supervisors, implying a paternalisticorientation. This interpretation is consistent with the findings of a recent studyby Bochner and Hesketh (1994). They found that subordinates from high powerdistance cultures preferred more close and direct supervision and more contactwith their supervisors. Paternalism is also reflected in the orientation among sub-ordinates to say 'yes' more often than 'no' to the demands of their supervisors.Redding and Wong have argued that in the context of the Chinese culture suchpaternalism could be viewed as 'a suitable adaptation to the expectations ofemployees, being in harmony with the values of respect for authority, con-formism, and deference' (1986: 282). Similarly, emphasis on trust insuperior-subordinate relations in a coUectivist society such as Hong Kongreflects a personalistic orientation among employees which extends organiza-tional roles beyond rational boundaries. Trust is interpreted not so much as trustin a neutral and objective system of performance evaluation but as trust insupervisor's personal credibility and moral worthiness in appraising subordinates.

There is, however, a limited possibility of extending the combined model ofLandy et al. (1978) and Fulk et al. (1985) to predict employee willingness to useperformance feedback. Only two of its elements appeared to be direct predictorsin the proposed model which explained 22 per cent of the variance. It is interest-ing to note that, of these two elements, the agreed performance plan explained alarger share of variance in employee willingness to use performance feedbackand that focus groups interpreted this positive relationship as a reflection of anemployee's obligation towards his or her supervisor rather than towards perfor-mance goals. On the other hand, perceived fairness and accuracy accounted for amodest amount of variance in employee willingness to use performance feedback.As suggested by focus groups, a possible reason could be its weak linkage withthe supervisor's role in actual aliocation of organizational rewards for perfor-mance improvement.

In line with earlier findings (Cleveland et al., 1989), this study also showed


that performance improvement and salary review were two widespread organiza-tional objectives of performance evaluation. Results further suggest that employ-ees tend to have a neutral view about using performance evaluation to meet thetwo objectives simultaneously. Randell et al.'s (1984) proposal to divide objec-tives of performance evaluation therefore seems unnecessary.

Considering these results, a revised model is shown in Figure 2. It retains thecombined model (Landy et al., 1978; Fulk et al., 1985) as a subset and at thesame time indicates that all the elements of this subset may not be the determi-nants of employee willingness to use performance feedback. It further shows thata large proportion of variance remains to be explained and that there may beother factors responsible for this. Such factors could be both interpersonal andorganizational in nature. From among interpersonal factors, Fulk et al. (1985)have emphasized importance of communication in the appraisal process and itsoutcomes. In view of the focus group observations, organizational factors mayinclude reward system, career planning and training and development. Of thesefactors, organizational rewards in general and monetary rewards in particularcould be potent determinants of employee willingness to act on feedback amongHong Kong employees. This conclusion receives support from previous research(Lau, 1982; Redding and Hsiao, 1990; Redding and Wong, 1986) which hasshown that Hong Kong Chinese attach high importance to economic rewards.

Supervisor'sKnowledge

Agreed Performance Plan

.37

.11f

Perceived Fairnessand Accuracy

.04

.04

Trust in Supervisor

.18

Willingness toUse Feedback

Figure 2 Revised model of perceived fairness and accuracy and employee willing-ness to use feedback

Implications for practice

Findings presented here have several implications for practice. First, supervisor'slack of knowledge about subordinate's job can significantly undermine the credi-bility of the performance evaluation process. It is a cultural expectation amongHong Kong Chinese employees that their supervisors should show interest inwhat they do and what personal difficulties they face in achieving performancegoals. Supervisors should therefore maintain regular interaction with subordi-nates on both job and person-related issues. Second, knowledge about job andperson-related issues can provide a firm basis for developing a realistic perfor-mance plan. This is because both supervisors and subordinates have an opportu-nity to use shared knowledge, rather than personal assumptions, to discuss


performance goals. In doing so, supervisors will be able to minimize covert resis-tance among subordinates. Third, an attempt to impose performance goals maybe counter-productive even in a paternalistic culture. According to Redding, in apaternalistic culture 'subordinates' views may not be overtly sought, or formallytaken account of, but ignoring them will undermine commitment of those below,and bring about a whole array of subtle and often invisible denials of coopera-tion' (Redding, 1990: 131). Supervisors concerned with performance improve-ment should recognize this and elicit employee opinions, formally or informally.Fourth, contrary to Randell et al.'s (1984) proposal, results suggest that organi-zations can use performance evaluation to meet the twin objectives ofperformance improvement and salary review simultaneously without beingapprehensive about negative consequences. However, this study examinedRandell et al.'s (1984) proposal from the subordinates' point of view. It is possi-ble that supervisors may experience conflict and tension in playing the roles of ajudge and a counsellor at the same time. One way to handle these conflictingroles, in a Western cultural sense, is to devise fair and clear standards of perfor-mance which can be used for both salary review and performance improvement.In a Chinese cultural sense, supervisors would be expected to display moralstrength to deal with a conflict situation and, if circumstances demand, seek anintervention from a third party or from a higher authority. Finally, it must benoted that in the context of Hong Kong the role of Chinese cultural values inperformance evaluation should not be stretched too far because there are certainorganizational and environmental factors which tend to support the convergenceof flndings obtained from the present study and that of Fulk et al. (1985). Here,public sector organizations, established under British rule, have acquired a highdegree of formalization, role specialization and standardization. Individualist cul-tural values are hence expected to underlie a system of performance evaluationin these organizations. In the private sector, both local and foreign owned largeorganizations faced with competitive environmental conditions have been underincreasing pressure to standardize work processes, introduce greater specializa-tion and formalize performance evaluation. Coupled with these factors arechanging work-force characteristics. The younger generation workers are bettereducated and more Western in outlook. There is some empirical evidence to sug-gest that a shift in cultural values is under way among young people. In a com-parative study of cultural values among students, Triandis et al. (1990) foundthat Hong Kong students rejected the values of non-competitiveness, protectingone's 'face' and having few desires. In short, Chinese and Western cultural val-ues coexist in Hong Kong organizations. This coexistence of diverse cultural val-ues may however be more prominent in large public and private sectororganizations than in small business firms owned by Chinese families. Giventhese circumstances, professionally managed large organizations are in an advan-tageous position to gain employee acceptance of a formalized performance evalu-ation system based on the values of individual achievement and personalaccountability.

Jenny S. Y. Lee and Syed AkhtarCity University of Hong Kong


Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Robin Snell and the anonytnous referee for com-ments on a draft of this paper.

References

Annett, J. (1969) Feedback and Human Behaviour. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.Ashford, S.J. and Cummings, L.L. (1983) 'Feedback as an Individual Resource: Personal

Strategies of Creating Information', Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance,32: 370-98.

Bochner, S. and Hesketh, B. (1994) 'Power Distance, Individualism/Collectivism, and Job-related Attitudes in a Culturally Diverse Work Group', Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 25: 233-57.

Bond, M.H. (1991) Beyond the Chinese Face: Insights from Psychology. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T. and Read, W. (1992) 'The Current State of PerformanceAppraisal Research and Practice: Concerns, Directions, and Implications', Journal ofManagement, 18: 321—52.

Cleveland, J.N., Murphy, K.R. and Williams, R.E. (1989) 'Multiple uses of PerformanceAppraisal: Prevalence and Correlates', Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 130-5.

Deets, N.R. and Tyler, D.T. (1986, April) 'How Xerox Improved its PerformanceAppraisal', Personnel Journal, 50-2.

Fletcher, C. and Williams, R. (1985) Performance Appraisal and Career Development.London: Hutchinson.

Fulk, J., Brief, A.P. and Barr, S.H. (1985) 'Trust-in-supervisor and Perceived Fairness andAccuracy of Performance Evaluation', Journal of Business Research, 13: 299-313.

Greenberg, J. (1986) 'Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations',Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 340-2.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-relatedValues. London: Sage.

Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, CD. and Taylor, M.S. (1979) 'Consequences of Individual Feedbackon Behaviour in Organizations', Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 349-71.

Kane, J. and Lawler, E. (1979) 'Performance Appraisal Effectiveness'. In Staw, B. (ed.)Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 425-78.

Kirkbride, P.S., Tang, S.F.Y. and Westwood, R.I. (1991) 'Chinese Conflict Style andNegotiating Behaviour: Cultural and Psychological Influences'. Organisation Studies, 12:365-86.

Landy, F.J., Barnes, J.L. and Murphy, K.R. (1978) 'Correlates of Perceived Fairness andAccuracy of Performance Evaluation', Journal of Applied Psychology, 6: 751-4.

Lawler, E.E. (1967) 'The Multi-trait Multi-rate Approach to Measuring Managerial JobPerformance', Journal of Applied Psychology, 51: 369-81.

Lau, S.K. (1982) Society and Politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The Chinese UniversityPress.

Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N. and Koeppel, J. (1968) 'Motivational Effects of Knowledge ofResults: A Goal-setting Phenomenon', Psychological Bulletin, 78: 474-85.

Longenecker, CO., Sims, H.P. and Gioia, D.A. (1987) Behind the Mask: The Politics ofEmployee Appraisal', Academy of Management Executive, 1: 183-93.

Meyer, H., Kay, E. and French, J. (1965) 'Split Roles in Performance Appraisal', HarvardBusiness Review, 43: 123-9.

Morgan, D.L. (1988) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. London: Saga.Randell, G., Packard, P. and Slater, J. (1984) Staff Appraisal. London: Institute of

Personnel Management.Redding, S.G. (1990) The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism. New York: de Gruyter.


Redding, S.G. and Hsiao, M. (1990) 'An Empirical Study of Overseas Chinese ManagerialIdeology', International Journal of Psychology, 25: 629-41.

Redding, S.G. and Wong, G.Y.Y. (1986) 'The Psychology of Chinese OrganizationalBehaviour'. In Bond, M.H. (ed.) The Psychology of the Chinese People. New York:Oxford University Press, pp. 267-95.

Triandis, H.C, Bontempo, R., Leung, K. and Hui, CH. (1990) 'A Method forDetermining Cultural, Demographic, and Personal Constructs', Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21: 302-19.

Wayne, S.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1990) 'Influence Tactics, Affect, and Exchange Quality inSupervisor-subordinate Interactions: A Laboratory Study and Field Study', Journal ofApplied Psychology, 75: 487-99.

determinants of employee willingness to use feedback for performance improvement: cultural and...

Documents