gender-specific preferences in global performance management: an empirical study of male and female...
TRANSCRIPT
Human Resource Management
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.21609
Correspondence to: Marion Festing, Human Resource Management and Intercultural Leadership, ESCP
Europe, Heubnerweg 8-10, 14059 Berlin, Germany, Phone: 0049 (0)30 32007153, Fax: 0049 (0)30 32007189,
E-mail: [email protected].
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES
IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT: AN EMPIRICAL
STUDY OF MALE AND FEMALE
MANAGERS IN A MULTINATIONAL
CONTEXT
M A R I O N F E S T I N G , L E N A K N A P P E R T, A N D A N G E L A K O R N A U
This study investigates gender-specifi c preferences in one important human
resource management (HRM) practice—namely, global performance man-
agement (GPM). GPM has major consequences for the career advance-
ment of women and can therefore also represent a barrier if it is rooted
in traditional male corporate cultures. As prior research suggests that the
underrepresentation of women in top management positions is a worldwide
phenomenon with only minor national variations, empirical data were col-
lected in fi ve countries belonging to various cultural clusters: China, France,
Germany, South Africa, and the United States. For all countries, the results
show that preferences vary signifi cantly between male and female managers
for crucial parts of the GPM system (actors’ roles, evaluation methods, feed-
back procedures, and GPM purposes). This study confi rms that the prefer-
ences of female managers do not match more male-oriented GPM practices,
indicating that female managers are less satisfi ed with existing GPM proce-
dures. It was particularly surprising to fi nd that these gender differences do
not vary according to cultural background, but rather display the same pat-
tern in all investigated countries. These fi ndings not only have the potential to
explain the often-limited career advancement of women, but also have major
implications for multinational companies aiming to retain talented women.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: gender diversity, performance management, international HRM
2 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
There is consensus
that those
companies that
aim at global
competitiveness
need to consider
diverse perspectives
and value the
contributions of
female managers
when formulating
business policies
and organizational
practices.
Reasons for the often-cited “glass ceiling” (Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987)—that is, the invisible barriers that prevent women from advancing to top management—range from stereotyping of women (Prime, Carter, & Welbourne, 2009) or informal male networks to systematic discrimination against women that is embedded in the organizational culture. A lack of cultural fit between female values and a male-oriented management culture is considered one of the greatest obstacles with which female managers are confronted, in par-ticular in the top management circles (Lyness & Thompson, 2000; Zahidi & Ibarra, 2010). All of these barriers are reflected in organizational practices such as the allocation of assign-ments or biased assessment processes (Hind & Baruch, 1997; Powell, 2011). A key role in this process can be attributed to performance management systems, which are the basis for promotional decisions as well as for the distri-bution of other important resources, such as salaries or training programs. Therefore, their design is crucial for women’s advancement to top management positions.
Professionals who have already moved up the hierarchy—mostly men—are likely to have a dominant impact on performance man-agement processes (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1993). Meyerson and Fletcher (2000) suggest that if the prevailing masculine model manifests itself within the performance management system, female managers are less likely to benefit from it, in which case the whole sys-tem could be susceptible to discrimination. Previous research mainly analyzed discrimi-natory impacts in evaluation processes with regard to gender bias in interpersonal inter-actions (e.g., Maurer & Taylor, 1994) or dis-advantages concerning the overvaluation of stereotypically male characteristics and lead-ership styles (e.g., Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Surprisingly, hardly any studies investigate gender-specific models or preferences concerning performance man-agement (one exception is Hind & Baruch, 1997). Thus, we lack an understanding of how the various elements of the perfor-mance management system itself could be designed alternatively in accordance with female preferences.
Introduction
Large companies are still predomi-nantly male-led. Women on corporate boards represent less than 1 percent of directors in Japan; 5–8 percent in countries like France, Germany, the
United Kingdom, Chile, or South Africa; and only 10–15 percent in China or the United States (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2008; Terjesen & Singh, 2008). Though there is evi-dence for some country-specific variance, the global picture is clear in that the dispro-portionately lower representation of women
in senior management is not a phenomenon particular to cer-tain countries; rather, it is a global phenomenon found all over the world, although to varying de-grees (De Cieri, 2009; Terjesen & Singh, 2008).
Excluding half of the world’s population from important deci-sion-making processes is not only an ethical dilemma, but also an economic issue. The OECD report on gender and sustainable devel-opment criticizes how “women—and their potential contributions to economic advances, social progress and environmental protection—have been margin-alized” (OECD, 2008, p. 4). The report outlines that women may have a positive impact on com-pany performance due to unique contributions to decision-mak-ing processes, or capabilities in terms of communication or team building (OECD, 2008). Though the overall findings are mixed, research results mostly support
this idea (e.g., Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008; Robinson & Dechant, 1997). There is consensus that those companies that aim at global competitiveness need to consider diverse perspectives and value the contri-butions of female managers when formu-lating business policies and organizational practices.
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 3
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
It is well understood
that male-oriented
organizations pose
a substantial barrier
to female career
advancement;
however, women
in management
research lack
adequate
quantitative
empirical tools
to capture the
relationship
between gender
and organizational
values and related
practices.
findings and draw conclusions with respect to practical implications and avenues for future research.
The Concept of Global Performance Management
Applied by the majority of multinational enterprises (MNEs) and other companies, performance management is often conceptualized as the sophisti-cated extension of performance appraisal, linking organizational goals with individual objectives (Björkman, 2002; Lindholm, 2000). In line with Festing, Knappert, Dowling, and Engle (2012), we categorize the follow-ing five main categories of employee performance manage-ment: criteria, actors, feedback, methods, and purposes. Each cat-egory contains several GPM ele-ments; for example, the “actors” category contains the supervisor, peers, clients, and subordinates. The specific shape and interplay of the various performance man-agement elements across organi-zational units and national borders, including varying notions of global standardization and localization, form the specific GPM system applied by compa-nies (Engle, Dowling, & Festing, 2008). Thus, performance man-agement including the five cate-gories mentioned earlier is supposed to reflect dominating organizational values, has an influence on many human capi-tal-related managerial decisions, and, consequently, has an important impact on the topic focused on in this study—gender equality in organizations. Due to the impor-tant challenges MNEs face when they aim to implement performance management glob-ally, the vast majority of research on GPM focuses on cross-national analyses and com-parative aspects (Boselie, Farndale, & Paauwe, 2012; Cascio, 2012; Claus & Briscoe, 2008;
This study addresses this research gap by empirically investigating global performance management (GPM) from a gender perspec-tive. The major goals of this research project are to identify whether gender-specific pref-erences concerning the various elements of GPM exist and whether the preferences of male managers actually match GPM practices applied in real life better. For this purpose, discrepancies between applied GPM prac-tices and the preferences of male and female managers are identified and compared. As available data suggest that the underrep-resentation of women in top management positions is a global challenge, we examine whether these gender-specific findings are valid across cultures or if they are contin-gent upon the cultural context. Therefore, we conducted our empirical study in a multi-national enterprise, comprising five globally spread and economically relevant countries (China, France, Germany, South Africa, and the United States) in our analyses and focused on GPM.
As suggested earlier, it is well understood that male-oriented organizations pose a sub-stantial barrier to female career advancement; however, women in management research lack adequate quantitative empirical tools to capture the relationship between gender and organizational values and related prac-tices (e.g., Bajdo & Dickson, 2001). We take a unique and innovative approach by apply-ing sophisticated methodological tools from cross-cultural research to investigate the exis-tence of male-oriented management prac-tices. Male and female managers were asked how performance management is applied (as is), in order to measure actual practices, and then how it should be applied (should be), in order to measure preferences and values.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, we introduce the basic ideas behind the GPM concept. Then, we briefly summarize the literature on male-oriented management cultures and related discrimina-tory practices in performance management. Next we develop hypotheses with respect to gender differences in GPM, and then, after presenting the methodology for the empirical investigation and the results, we discuss the
4 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Most companies
are founded by
men and, therefore,
deliberately or
not, these firms
took mainly male
preferences,
attributes, and
life patterns into
consideration,
leading to the
dominance of a
male-oriented
management
culture.
patterns, characteristics, and needs of women (Maddock & Parkin, 1994), and thus are not likely to match the preferences of female managers. Gender-neutral organizational practices, more precisely human resource management (HRM) practices, can therefore hardly be expected in today’s large enter-prises (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000; Rothschild & Davies, 1994). Ely (1995) states that as long as women are underrepresented in lead-ing positions in large companies all over the world, power or status differentials between male and female employees will persist and be associated with a dominance of male val-ues. Consequently, these values determine who gets promoted and thus what kind of behavior and leadership style is rewarded (E. H. Schein, 2004), thus making it difficult for women to succeed.
On the individual level, no clear pattern can be identified about how female manag-ers, in particular those with high career ambi-tions, cope with the lower appreciation of female values and behavioral patterns that exist in male-oriented business settings. Some researchers suggest that women start to accom-modate themselves to the male-dominated system by adopting stereotypically mascu-line behavior in order to be successful (e.g., Davies-Netzley, 1998; Ely, 1995; Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999; Powell, 2011). Other scholars argue that female managers display a feminine leadership style that deviates from the “command-and-control style” (Rosener, 1990, p. 119) typically associated with men or at least adopt an androgynous style—that is, by incorporating stereotypical feminine as well as masculine leadership aspects (e.g., Günther, 2004). The contents of these gender differences in leadership style have been dis-cussed extensively in the scholarly literature for more than 50 years (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003), although with mixed results. Many studies do not identify statistically significant differences in leader-ship styles between women and men (e.g., Chapman, 1975; Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Van Engen, Van der Leeden, & Willemsen, 2001). However, other authors claim that gender differences exist in this domain (e.g., Book, 2000; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener,
Varma, Budhwar, & DeNisi, 2008). However, the challenges on an individual level remain largely unseen (McKenna, Richardson, & Manroop, 2011). The following literature overview views GPM through the lens of gender.
Male-Oriented Management Cultures and Related Discriminatory Practices in Performance Management: A Literature-Based Overview
As stated earlier, it is assumed that business organizations, especially centers of power higher up the hierarchy, are dominated by a masculine management culture (Hood & Koberg, 1994; Lyness & Thompson, 2000).
Based on this assumption, in the next section we briefly outline the consequences of such a manage-ment culture for female leader-ship behavior and related discriminatory practices in perfor-mance management. Detailed gender-discriminating results concerning single elements of the GPM system are discussed in the context of the development of the single GPM element–related hypotheses.
For most of the twentieth century, organizations have been investigated following the under-lying assumption of gender neu-trality (Rothschild & Davies, 1994). However, most companies are founded by men and, there-fore, deliberately or not, these firms took mainly male prefer-ences, attributes, and life patterns into consideration, leading to the dominance of a male-oriented management culture (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). Despite a recently increasing number of
women entering top management posi-tions, today’s modern organizations are still gendered (Ruderman, 2006). We mostly find gendered organizational practices that do not take into account the specific life
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 5
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
1993), but instead show that perceived femi-ninity/masculinity of the ratee’s character-istics, in combination with conceived job requirements, affect performance ratings. More precisely, women who are perceived as more masculine receive higher performance ratings in male-dominated occupations (Maurer & Taylor, 1994).
In the literature, this phenomenon is referred to as the “think manager–think male” paradigm (V. E. Schein, 1973). Assessors evaluate the suitability of a person for a certain position based on their experiences with current job holders. In the case of senior management positions, these are mostly men. Here, stereotypical masculine charac-teristics, such as assertiveness or competitive-ness, are likely to be considered as appropriate assessment criteria (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1993). Studies on the “think manager–think male” paradigm find that stereotypical male char-acteristics, often also labeled “agentic” (e.g., aggressive, decisive), are highly corre-lated with traits perceived to be needed for effective management. In contrast, stereo-typical female attributes, also referred to as “communal” (e.g., sympathetic, concerned about others), are not perceived to fit the cul-tural concept of the “ideal manager” (Koenig et al., 2011). As a consequence, gender bias in evaluation is likely to occur and women’s performance is undervalued, especially for females who do not adopt stereotypical mas-culine characteristics and management styles (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1993; Heilman, 2001). Yet, it is important to note that these disadvan-tageous evaluations are less likely to occur when respondents are asked to assess their real-life female boss instead of a hypotheti-cal leader (Elsesser & Lever, 2011). However, as long as women in leadership positions are thin on the ground and do not have the opportunity to be exposed immediately to subordinates and convince them through their competencies and management style, the idea in the minds of people of an “ideal” leader described in stereotypically mascu-line terms remains powerful. A recent meta-analysis (Koenig et al., 2011) confirms that this masculine construal of effective leader-ship still prevails in today’s organizations.
1990) and describe them accordingly by argu-ing that female managers put more empha-sis on the process of leading and are more cooperative, democratic, participative, and relationship-oriented. In contrast, men stress outcomes and instrumentality and display a more autocratic and directive style. In par-ticular, the communication style of female managers is supposed to be characterized by a greater preparedness to share information as well as to facilitate inclusion and encour-age input from employees (Helgesen, 1990; Iannello, 1992; Rosener, 1990). Additionally, there is growing evidence that female leaders are indeed more transformational compared to men (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly et al., 2003), in particular in business settings (Van Engen & Willemsen, 2004).
On the organizational level, with respect to the human resource (HR) practice focused on in this article—GPM—a considerable amount of research has examined gender bias in evaluation processes (e.g., Axelson, Solow, Ferguson, & Cohen, 2010; Elsesser & Lever, 2011; Maurer & Taylor, 1994; Robbins & DeNisi, 1993; Smith, Paul, & Paul, 2007; Terborg & Shingledecker, 1983), most of which examine the influence of certain char-acteristics of the actors on the performance evaluation result—in particular, sex and gen-der stereotypical attitudes. However, results are again inconsistent in that some findings reveal that the sex of the actors influences managers’ performance judgments by dem-onstrating a so-called “pro-male bias”—that is, men are rated higher than women despite equal performance levels (Bauer & Baltes, 2002). According to Dobbins, Cardy, and Truxillo (1986), such disadvantageous evalua-tions of women are more likely to occur when the results of the appraisal are used for merit pay or promotional decisions. It is suggested that this partially explains the gender pay gap (Dobbins et al., 1986). Other investigations indicate that there is a positive bias toward subordinates of the same sex—that is, male superiors favor men and female superiors favor women (Varma & Stroh, 2001). Further studies suggest that ratee sex by itself does not cause significant bias (e.g., Robbins & DeNisi,
6 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Output criteria are
less ambiguous
than input criteria
and, consequently,
their application
decreases the
likelihood of gender
discrimination.
practices. On the contrary, input criteria, which include individual characteristics such as personal expertise or access to net-works, can lead to highly subjective assess-ments—for example, when an assessor has to identify whether a person is charismatic or particularly talented (Heilman, 2001; Townley, 1990). We therefore suggest the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Female managers con-sider the use of input criteria less desir-able compared to male managers.
Gender Specifi city of Actors’ Roles in GPM
The roles of actors describe who is assessing whom during an appraisal; thus, they con-cern the rating person as well as the ratee. The rater can be oneself, a superior, peers, or customers, while the ratee may include indi-vidual employees or teams (Boselie et al., 2012; Hedge, Borman, & Birkeland, 2001).
Assessments via a one-to-one interview by a supervisor seem to be quite common (Aguinis, 2013; Ferris & Treadway, 2007) in traditional companies using a top-down evaluation. The advantages of being assessed by a direct superior are obvious because the supervisor is supposed to know exactly what type of work employees are involved in and is therefore most qualified to judge the per-formance (Townley, 1990). Apart from this point, female managers are more open to ini-tiatives from their supervisor, which aim to get them involved in strategic organizational issues (London, Larsen, & Thisted, 1999). It was also found that female managers make more use of existing formal systems to inform their superior about their wish for promotion, and they consider it generally more impor-tant than men do to spend time communi-cating with their direct supervisor (Stewart & Gudykunst, 1982). Overall, the supervisor and his judgments seem to be of great impor-tance for female managers.
Hypothesis 2a: Female managers con-sider an evaluation by their supervi-sor more desirable compared to male managers.
In summary, it can be noted that gender dif-ferences, no matter whether they are real or perceived, contribute to reducing opportuni-ties for women in performance evaluation processes because men, mostly in the role of leaders and assessors, dominate the design of existing performance management systems, which in turn reflect male preferences, val-ues, and behavioral norms.
Gender-Related Perspectives on Global Performance Management
The concept of GPM as defined earlier consists of five main features of employee performance management: criteria, actors, feedback, methods, and purposes. (Festing et al., 2012). These categories are the basis for developing the following hypotheses concerning the gender-related preferences of GPM, as well as for determining discrepancies between prefer-
ences and actually applied prac-tices. The focus of the hypotheses is on differences in perceptions between males and females, while for the purpose of ensuring clarity of our argumentation possible sim-ilarities are not addressed.
Gender Specifi city of Evaluation Criteria in GPM
Referring to Engle et al. (2008), performance evaluation criteria can be categorized into input and out-put criteria. While the latter are characterized by the measurable
results of work (in numbers and figures), input criteria are specified by previous success, expertise, or the professional network to which one can refer.
Prior research suggests that the use of objective and identifiable criteria is helpful in reducing the risk of gender bias in evalu-ation processes (Townley, 1990). Output criteria are less ambiguous than input cri-teria and, consequently, their application decreases the likelihood of gender discrimi-nation. However, objective output criteria may not just be beneficial for women, but equally to all employees who value fair-ness issues in performance management
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 7
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
We suggest that
female managers
are more aware
of the importance
of giving direct
and participative
feedback to
employees, and
at the same time
they are also more
open to receiving
feedback.
they are particularly anxious to prevent possible mistakes (Kanter, 1977). Moreover, research suggests that female managers are generally more sensitive to the opinions of other people due to their strong interper-sonal orientation. Thus, they are likely to rely more on external sources than on their personal judgment about themselves, and therefore attach more importance to the organizational feedback process (Fletcher, 1999; London et al., 1999). In addition, regular face-to-face-interaction, as well as direct and reciprocal communicative behav-ior, correspond more to the preferences of women (see Schick Case, 1994, for a review on gender differences in communication). As such, a lack of feedback—and hence the absence of valuable information on desired behavior in a certain work environment—can pose an additional barrier for wom-en’s promotion opportunities (Oakley, 2000).
If organizations are open to feedback processes, this ensures fairness in the appraisal process (Townley, 1990). The use of a constructive and direct mode for exchanging information about personal strengths and weak-nesses can reduce the risk of a gender-specific evaluation bias. Research has shown that proce-dural fairness in the performance appraisal process is more impor-tant for the satisfaction of women than for men, whereas fairness in the distri-bution of outcomes, such as salary or promo-tions, is more important for men (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). In summary, we suggest that female managers are more aware of the importance of giving direct and participative feedback to employees, and at the same time they are also more open to receiving feedback.
Hypothesis 3: Female managers con-sider performance feedback that is char-acterized by a high degree of directness and involvement more desirable than male managers.
In terms of the ratee, the literature sug-gests that women leaders are more participa-tive and concentrate more on relationship building within a team, whereas male leaders have a preference for individual recognition and derive more satisfaction from competi-tive situations (Offermann & Beil, 1992). Recent investigations confirm that women appreciate engaging in competition less than men do (e.g., Niederle & Vesterlund, 2011)—in particular, in patriarchal environments (Gneezy, Leonard, & List, 2009). As a conse-quence, companies that understand perfor-mance mainly in terms of a male-constructed idea of achievement, characterized by a focus on a competitive individual, potentially prevent women from entering these organi-zations and fail to recognize women’s con-tributions, such as resolving conflicts within a team or coaching activities (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). It is therefore proposed that female managers prefer group-focused evalu-ations. In this case, the work that happens “behind the scenes,” which is essential in making a team work effectively, is no longer invisible but is instead adequately rewarded.
Hypothesis 2b: Female managers con-sider group-focused performance assess-ment more desirable compared to male managers.
Gender Specifi city of Feedback Procedures in GPM
The way feedback is provided is another cen-tral feature of performance management. According to Aycan (2005) and Shen (2004), the way feedback is communicated can be specified by the degree of the involvement and participation of the assessed person, as well as by the extent of directness.
Women are particularly inclined to seek feedback in traditional male occupations, which can be explained by the high level of female uncertainty about what exactly is expected from them when conducting male-typed tasks (Holder, 1998). Additionally, due to their token status in male-domi-nated organizations, women are under high amounts of pressure to perform, and thus
8 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
A more formalized,
transparent, and
explicit approach
to performance
management
appears to be
less potentially
discriminatory and
corresponds more
with the preferences
of women and in
regard to ensuring
procedural fairness.
women expect to be evaluated by a female manager, they anticipate more positive out-comes from a subjective evaluation process. Companies that want to attract and retain female managers thus need either to increase the objectivity of the evaluation process or increase the number of female assessors by enabling more women to advance to higher management positions (Maas & Torres-González, 2011).
In summary, we suggest that when explicit rules are applied to the GPM pro-cess, there is less room for the inconsistent application of methods or biased interpreta-tions of results. A more formalized, transpar-ent, and explicit approach to performance management appears to be less potentially discriminatory and corresponds more with the preferences of women and in regard to ensuring procedural fairness. We therefore hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4: Female managers con-sider explicit GPM methods more desir-able than male managers.
Gender Specifi city of the Purposes of GPM
Th e results and interventions that follow a performance appraisal allocate respective resources and simultaneously support the link between individual objectives and the global goals of the MNE. These purposes can be categorized into “soft” (i.e., relationship building, commitment, motivation, and development) and “hard” purposes (i.e., com-pensation and career decisions) (Fee, McGrath-Champ, & Yang, 2011; Milliman, Nason, Zhu, & De Cieri, 2002).
The literature on gender differences in leadership styles suggests that female leaders are more transformational compared to male leaders (Bass et al., 1996; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Eagly et al., 2003), in that they aim to inspire their subordinates, to act as role models, to be intellectually stimulat-ing and critical of the status quo, as well as individually considerate by focusing, for instance, on the development and mentoring of subordinates (Bass et al., 1996). In addition,
Gender Specifi city of the Explicitness of GPM
We echo the conceptualization of appraisal methods by Engle et al. (2008), who suggest the degree of explicitness is one of the basic characteristics of all methods (i.e., guide-lines, appraisal forms) that support the GPM process. GPM systems without explic-itly expressed rules and guidelines assume that the process is known implicitly by all actors.
Prior research suggests that a lack of struc-ture in performance management is prob-lematic for female managers because it leaves room for an inconsistent application of meth-
ods, potentially favoring men (Heilman, 2001). If all employ-ees are informed about precise criteria and procedures (e.g., by written guidelines) relevant for performance evaluation, appraisal results should be traceable and fair-ness will more easily be ensured, especially for female managers (Townley, 1990). Singh, Kumra, and Vinnicombe (2002) explain that “women do not always want to play the ‘organizational game’ by the male constructed unwrit-ten rules, but prefer to trust good management and systems fair-ness for just rewards” (Singh et al., 2002, p. 77).
Indeed, there is evidence that more formalized and stan-dardized procedures for evaluat-ing performance and promotion processes have a positive effect on the career advancement of women (Goodman, Fields, &
Blum, 2003; Powell & Butterfield, 1994; Stewart & Gudykunst, 1982). Some studies even suggest that women self-select into organizations that have more objective eval-uation methods, such as piece-rate systems, because these are less prone to gender dis-crimination (Jirjahn & Stephan, 2004; Maas & Torres-González, 2011). Interestingly, this finding only holds as long as women expect to be assessed by a male manager—when
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 9
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Various pieces of
evidence indicate
that female
managers are
typically more
involved in the
so-called “soft”
purposes, such as
relationship building
and maintaining, as
well as development
and motivation of
employees, and the
enhancement of
their commitment.
with regard to the extent of the challenge and how it is approached in different cultures, indicating that related barriers are, to a great extent, contingent upon country-specific, sociopolitical, and cultural contexts (Cooke, 2010; Davidson & Burke, 2000). Referring to gender-relevant cultural dimensions of the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) study, it is evident that the countries investigated in this study—namely, China, France, Germany, South Africa, and the United States—vary greatly in terms of gender egalitarianism and asser-tiveness (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). A dif-ferent cultural socialization according to different societal val-ues and practices is thus likely to have an impact on male and female managers’ preferences. We therefore suggest that gender-spe-cific preferences are likely to vary according to country context.
Hypothesis 7: Gender differ-ences between male and female managers in GPM preferences vary across cultures.
Methodology
This study is part of a larger research effort aiming to shed more light on the global applica-tion of performance management in MNEs from contextual, organi-zational, and individual perspec-tives. While the importance of some GPM elements can be operationalized directly (e.g., various actors such as the super-visor, peer, or the assessed person him-/her-self), the relevance of other latent GPM elements (e.g., the explicitness of applied methods) needs more than one item to be measured. Hence, we followed multistage scale development techniques (DeVellis, 1991; Hinkin, 1995) in order to develop the respective scales. In line with this approach, we conducted an extensive literature review, preliminary interviews with MNE HR
Goodman et al. (2003) found empirical evi-dence for the correlation between the num-ber of female top managers and the meaning an organization gives to employee develop-ment. Thus, various pieces of evidence indi-cate that female managers are typically more involved in the so-called “soft” purposes, such as relationship building and maintain-ing, as well as development and motivation of employees, and the enhancement of their commitment. These findings lead us to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Female managers con-sider soft purposes of GPM more desir-able than male managers.
Gender Specifi city in Matching Overall GPM Practices With GPM Preferences
So far in this article, we have argued that female managers’ preferences are not congru-ent with the preferences of their male coun-terparts. Based on the assumption that management culture and related practices are more male-oriented, we suggest that actual GPM practices differ much more from the preferences of female rather than male man-agers. Furthermore, Shen (2010) provided evi-dence that male employees are more satisfied than females with HRM policies, inter alia performance appraisal, which is explained by differing needs of men and women concern-ing HRM policies and certain privileges that men receive. We therefore propose the following:
Hypothesis 6: Across all GPM elements, actually applied GPM practices match the preferences of male managers rather than the preferences of female managers better.
Interaction Between Gender and Country Context
As stated in the introduction, data on female leaders suggest that the disproportionately lower representation of women in senior management positions is a global phenome-non. However, there certainly is local variance
10 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
on a seven-point Likert scale, as well as nine items covering relevant demographic data, were generated. All the items were developed in English, since the target group was com-posed of managers of MNEs who were famil-iar with negotiations and daily conversations in English.
By sending an online version of the questionnaire via email to the alumni of a European business school, a pretest was con-ducted. The group was international in its composition, and the results provided a basis for a first indication of cross-cultural equiva-lence (Harkness, Van de Vijver, & Johnson, 2003). With a total sample size of 240, a response rate of 6.9 percent, and 38 percent female participants, the majority of the par-ticipants identified either with the German (N = 113) or with the French culture (N = 73).
Following some pretest participants’ feedback concerning the measurement of criteria, some items conveyed potential mis-understandings, so the respective items were revised considerably. Our group-level sample sizes smaller than N = 100 did not allow for more sophisticated methods assessing cross-cultural equivalence, such as structural equa-tion modeling (referring to Byrne & Van de Vijver, 2010; Hox & Maas, 2001), in either the pretest or the main study, which is clearly a limitation of this study. However, explor-ative factor analyses (principal components with Varimax rotation) and reliability anal-yses were conducted for the whole sample and for each country, revealing that 14 items had to be deleted due to their low (< .50) or contradictory factor loadings. Out of the deleted 14 items, nine were reverse-scored so that no negatively worded items remained in the questionnaire, thus avoiding a discus-sion about their use and any inherent danger (Hinkin, 1995). We acknowledge that group-level sample sizes were small, especially when taking the sample-to-variable ratio into account, which was lower than 3:1. However, in order to refine the constructs and assess their intercultural equivalence, this step was essential (Byrne & Van de Vijver, 2010; Hinkin, 1995).
From this pretest, ten pairwise-structured scales resulted, measuring practices and
managers, and a pretest study, which is described in due course.
Item Generation and Scale Development
Since we aim to investigate gender-specific preferences concerning performance man-agement on a global level, a crucial method-ological issue of our research question is the equivalence of data from various countries. According to Byrne and Van de Vijver (2010, p. 107), a critical postulation in cross-cultural research is that “the instrument measures the same construct(s) in exactly the same way across all groups.” Apart from statistical pro-cedures that help to control and evaluate equivalences after measurement, several con-siderations are necessary beforehand. The development of items was conducted in deductive as well as inductive processes (Hinkin, 1995).
As far as inductive generation is con-cerned, human resource managers of MNEs in various countries (e.g., France, the United States, Japan, and China) were interviewed so that their input would help to establish categories of items while reducing cultural bias from the outset. Furthermore, following a deductive approach, an extensive litera-ture review was conducted and several items were developed based on previous work (Armstrong & Baron, 2005; Aycan, 2005; Engle et al., 2008; Fee et al., 2011; Lindholm, 2000; Milliman et al., 2002; Shen, 2004). Sources for the GPM elements measured in the main study can be found in Table I. In order to operationalize practices and prefer-ences, the developed items asked how per-formance management is applied (as is) and how it should be applied (should be), which is in line with approaches provided by earlier research in order to operationalize practices and values or preferences (e.g., House et al., 2004; Milliman et al., 2002). Finally, U.S., German, and French scholars were asked to review these first scales in order to check for inter-rater consistency.
To conclude this process, 77 items cov-ering the GPM elements (34 as is– and 34 should be–related items), which were rated
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 11
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Adapted From Scale/Items As Is Should Be
α FL α FL
Engle et al. (2008),
Lindholm (2000)
CriteriaThe evaluation criteria most applied in the
performance management system at my current
workplace are:
Input Criteria .61 .79
Educational background. .71 .85
Access to networks/important people. .69 .80
Previous appraisal results. .77 .82
Output Criteria
Result targets (e.g., agreed-upon fi gures, sales,
revenues, etc.).
Engle et al. (2008),
Lindholm (2000)
Explicit Methods .83 .87
Everyone who is involved in the performance
management system has access to information
and guidelines concerning its processes (i.e., via
an intranet or manuals). .74 .33
Performance management processes follow
formal rules. .73 .73
The determination of appraisal results is
based on well-known and universally valid
rules. .81 .40
Performance management processes are de-
signed in a logical way. .68 .38
The processes of the performance management
system are transparent and comprehensible for
all participants of the system. .60 .37
Festing et al. (2012) Actors
In the performance management system at my
current workplace, the most important assess-
ment comes from:
Clients.
Evaluated person him-/herself (self-evaluation).
Subordinates.
Peers.
Direct supervisor.
Assessment in the performance management
system at my current workplace focuses on:
Team performance.
Individual performance.
T A B L E I Survey Scale Items,a Cronbach’s Alpha Reliabilities (α), and Factor Loadings (FL) for As Is and
Should Be Dimensions
12 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Adapted From Scale/Items As Is Should Be
α FL α FL
Fee et al. (2011),
Milliman et al. (2002)
PurposesBesides the system’s overall target of enhanc-
ing employee performance, the main purpose
of the performance management system at my
current workplace is . . .
.88 .82
Soft Purposes .78 .62
The development of employees. .67 .72
Building and maintaining a relationship with
employees. .84 .67
Enhancing employees’ commitment. .82 .63
Motivating employees. .88 .82
Determining promotions and exits. .75 .70
Hard Purposes
Determining salaries.
Determining promotions and exits.
Aycan (2005),
Shen (2004)
Feedback CommunicationGood results and strengths are always
communicated directly.
Subordinates are encouraged to express their
opinion concerning the appraisal and its results.
Feedback is a bidirectional discussion.
Bad results and weaknesses are always
communicated directly.
.87 .93
.74 .86
.80 .86
.75 .79
.68 .85
The feedback situation is open and truthful. .80 .87
Armstrong and
Baron (2005)
Demographic DataAge
How old are you?
Gender
What is your gender?
Citizenship
What is your country of citizenship/passport?
Cultural Identity
Which country/culture do you most identify
with?
Experience With Local Culture
How long have you lived in the country you
currently live in?
International Experience
Besides your country of birth, how many other
countries have you lived in for longer than one
year?
Company Site
What is your current workplace?
T A B L E I Survey Scale Items,a Cronbach’s Alpha Reliabilities (α), and Factor Loadings (FL) for As Is and
Should Be Dimensions (Continued)
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 13
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
acceptable Cronbach’s alpha values between .61 and .97 for the whole sample (DeVellis, 1991). From an equivalence perspective, the reliabilities of the samples on the country level were also crucial. Here, the four items measuring hard purposes (two as is– and two should be–oriented) did not show the required scale quality in the main study and were therefore kept on a single-item level measur-ing salary and the promotion purposes of appraisals. With Cronbach’s alpha values between .61 and .97, all other scales were at least minimally acceptable, except the scale measuring input criteria on the as is level, with Cronbach’s alpha values below .60. However, since our focus was on gender-spe-cific differences on the respective should be scale, which showed reliabilities between .61 and .81, the input criteria scales were kept in the dataset.
In order to assess construct validity, a con-firmatory factor analysis was applied, reveal-ing satisfying loadings for most items (> .60). However, this was not the case for the should be scale measuring the explicitness of meth-ods. Here, some of the factor loadings were between .30 and .40. Referring to other schol-ars, and due to the conceptual importance of this scale, we decided to keep these items in the questionnaire (Hinkin, 1995).
Sample of the Main Study
In order to control organizational influences (e.g., industry, organizational culture, and strategy), the assumed effects were studied
preferences concerning input-oriented cri-teria, the explicitness of methods, the way feedback is provided, and hard and soft pur-poses. Finally, conforming factor structures and relatively respectable Cronbach’s alpha values between .72 and .93 (DeVellis, 1991) were found for the German and the French groups, as well as for the whole sample, sup-porting the conceptual equivalence of the scales (Byrne & Van de Vijver, 2010). The operationalization of actors and output- oriented criteria had to be designed on a single-item level.
Measures Applied in the Main Study
After adapting the questionnaire according to the outcomes of the pretest, the survey included 63 items. Table I presents the refer-ences, scales, and items for the present sur-vey. Fifty-four pairwise-structured items measured performance management prac-tices on the one hand (27 as is items) and managers’ preferences concerning the same GPM elements on the other (27 should be items), while nine items covered demographic data on the individual and organizational lev-els that might be relevant for the perception of GPM practices and respective preferences. The demographic questions can be found in Table I, too. Besides gender as the major inde-pendent variable, we included age, the depart-ment in which the participants were working, and their cultural identity as control variables in the analyses. Similar to the pretest results, most scales showed at least minimally
T A B L E I Survey Scale Items,a Cronbach’s Alpha Reliabilities (α), and Factor Loadings (FL) for As Is and
Should Be Dimensions (Continued)
Adapted From Scale/Items As Is Should Be
α FL α FL
Experience With GPM at Local Site
How long have you worked at the workplace
you currently work at?
Department
Please indicate the kind of work primarily done
by the department you are working for:
Note: aItems presented in the Appendix are displayed in the As Is version. In order to capture the respective preference, the item is
slightly adapted (e.g., “The evaluation criteria most applied in the performance management system at my current workplace should
be: Result targets (e.g., agreed-upon fi gures, sales, revenues, etc.)”).
14 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
higher than the men’s, although the gender-specific purpose was not communicated. The participants’ mean age was 43 years, and most of the respondents worked in the finance, human resources, engineering, or production functions.
Data Analyses and Results
In order to identify the differences between male and female managers’ preferences, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. Table II provides an overview of means, standard deviations, and correla-tions between the considered variables. Table III presents the MANOVA results and displays the gender-specific means, standard devia-tions, and differences concerning practices and preferences with respect to GPM ele-ments. Moreover, this table includes the respective gender-specific values of the differ-ences between overall practice and preferences.
Our first hypothesis proposes that female managers consider the use of input criteria less desirable compared to male managers (Hypothesis 1). Referring to the MANOVA results in Table III we have to reject this assumption (MMen = 3.42, MWomen = 3.32; p = .78). Also, for output-oriented criteria, no dif-ferences could be found (MMen = 2.08, MWomen = 2.13; p = .48). Consequently, as far as appraisal criteria are concerned, no gender-specific differences were found.
Concerning actors involved in the perfor-mance management system, the two hypoth-eses are supported by the data. As assumed in Hypothesis 2b, female managers show significantly stronger preferences for group-focused assessments than male managers (MMen = 2.10, MWomen = 1.83; p < .05). At the same time, in line with Hypothesis 2a, they appreciate an assessment by a direct supervi-sor more than male managers do (MMen = 1.97, MWomen = 1.77; p < .05). With respect to the other actor-related constructs (peers, clients, self-assessment, and individual focus), no gender-specific differences were found.
The results displayed in Table III show that Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 are supported by our data. The three hypotheses all assume
within one MNE following a localized approach when it comes to performance management. Interviews with HR managers in the headquarters and in the other investi-gated countries clearly confirmed this impor-tant criterion for choosing this company in order to exclude confounding effects due to standardization. To test the hypotheses, we chose to include four subsidiaries from differ-ent cultural clusters (for details, see House et al., 2004), as well as the company’s head-quarters. Data were collected through an online questionnaire that was sent via email by the respective human resource depart-ments to middle managers in the company’s South African, Chinese, U.S., and German subsidiaries, as well as in its French headquar-ters. In order to avoid bias (e.g., social desir-ability bias), several procedural remedies were applied (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon, & Podsakoff, 2003). First of all, the par-ticipants’ anonymity was assured and they were informed that no right or wrong answers were included in the questionnaire. The col-lected data were only accessible by the authors and not by any member of the organization. By not communicating openly the gender-specific research focus, the strict scientific use of the data were assured. Furthermore, the authors’ identity and contact data were pre-sented in the cover letter, again underlining the strict academic purpose and trustworthi-ness of the study.
Middle managers were chosen as the tar-get group of this investigation because it is assumed that they are familiar with the per-formance management of the company from two perspectives—assessing others and being assessed. The responses of 241 managers (49 from the Chinese sites, 31 from the French headquarters, 44 from the German sites, 43 from the South African subsidiaries, and 74 from the U.S. sites) were included in the anal-ysis, corresponding to a response rate of 48 percent, with only some variation in response rates across the five countries (between 35 and 60 percent). While overall the target manage-ment level of the company counts 22 percent female managers, our sample included 38.6 percent female participants, which indicates that the women’s response rate is slightly
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 15
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
We found in our
study that managers
display gender-
specific preferences
across crucial
elements of GPM
systems.
they show empirically that female managers clearly have a different understanding to male managers—or at least different wishes—about how a GPM system should work. While this was assumed based on the literature review, this article now provides empirical evidence from a multinational sample.
An unexpected result is the equal prefer-ence of male and female managers concerning appraisal criteria. Neither output- nor input-oriented criteria show gender-specific differ-ences in terms of preferences, though previous literature suggests that performance assess-ment based on input-oriented criteria disad-vantages female managers. Moreover, with respect to the mean scores, both groups value output-oriented more than input-oriented criteria. A possible explanation might be that female managers are simply not aware of the negative impact the use of input criteria may have on their career, but instead perceive them to be objective and unam-biguous. This indeed makes sense for some criteria, such as educa-tional background, but, as was outlined earlier, not for others.
In our investigation, we found that gender-specific pref-erences in GPM are surprisingly not country- or culture-specific, but rather a global phenomenon, which applies across diverse cultural clus-ters. It is particularly impressive to envision that female managers of different nation-alities, who have grown up in contrasting cultural contexts, nevertheless have similar expectations that differ from the existing GPM system. However, these results can be explained by the fact that female manag-ers working for large multinational compa-nies are socialized in a similar professional environment and are faced with similar problems and obstacles that are, to a great extent, related to male-oriented organiza-tional cultures. According to the Corporate Gender Gap Report (Zahidi & Ibarra, 2010), a survey of employees from the 100 larg-est companies in OECD countries, as well as more than 3,000 companies in China, India, Russia, and Brazil, one of the major
that, compared to their male counterparts, female managers display stronger preferences regarding the directness and involvement of feedback communication (MMen = 1.74, MWomen = 1.49; p < .01), the explicitness of methods (MMen = 1.58, MWomen = 1.34; p < .01), and the soft purposes of GPM (MMen = 1.63, MWomen = 1.49; p < .05). In line with our expectations, the two groups show no significant difference regarding salary (MMen = 2.54, MWomen = 2.55; p = .92) or promotion purposes (MMen = 2.35, MWomen = 2.10; p = .10).
On an aggregated level, we assumed in Hypothesis 6 that, across all GPM elements, GPM practices applied in a real-life setting match the preferences of male managers bet-ter than those of female managers. Indeed, as presented in Table III, the overall difference between practices and preferences is signifi-cantly higher for the female sample compared to the male participants (F1,236 = 6.18, p < .05).
In terms of control variables, it is impor-tant to note that the department does not have any impact on GPM practices and prefer-ences (F1,236 = 1.43, p > .05), while the partici-pants’ age (F1,236 = 2.77, p < .001) and cultural identities (F1,236 = 4.22, p < .001) do have an effect. The latter finding is in line with our final hypothesis (Hypothesis 7), which stated that gender differences between male and female managers in GPM preferences vary across cultures. However, when included in the design as the second independent vari-able, we did not find any interaction between culture and gender for any of the GPM ele-ments (F4,229 = 1.18, p = .17), which indicates that gender-specific findings do not differ across investigated countries; consequently, we have to reject Hypothesis 7.
Discussion
In summary, we found in our study that man-agers display gender-specific preferences across crucial elements of GPM systems. In particular, female managers prefer more super-visor involvement, a stronger group focus of the appraisal, more explicit methods, a higher relevance of soft purposes and interventions, and more directness and involvement for feedback communication. These results sup-port our hypotheses to a large extent, and
16 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
T A B L E I I Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Gender and Control Variables on GPM Elements
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 Gender 1.39 .49 1
2 Culture 25.87 16.49 –.02 1
3 Age 43.19 7.79 –.22** .22** 1
4 Department 5.43 2.08 –.01 .20** –.07 1
5 Criteria Input (as is) 3.60 1.21 .05 .27** –.03 –.01 1
6 Input (should be) 3.38 1.48 –.03 .21** .11 –.01 .57** 1
7 Output (as is) 2.69 1.42 .07 .09 –.17* .04 .24** .04 1
8 Output (should be) 2.10 1.16 .02 .10 –.18** .15* .17 .22** .41** 1
9 Actors Self (as is) 3.59 1.53 .03 .10 .11 .03 .13* .16* .19** .14* 1
10 Self (should be) 2.88 1.40 –.15** .19** .19** .07 .17** .28** .03 .18** .50** 1
11 Supervisor (as is) 1.91 1.05 –.12 –.09 –.14* –.01 .06 –.06 .14* .16* –.07 .04 1
12 Supervisor (should be) 1.89 .95 –.10 –.17 –.09 –.07 .05 .06 .09 .25** .03 .23** .49**
13 Subordinates (as is) 4.83 1.70 .09 .26** .12 .00 .28** .40** .10 .00 .40** .30** –.17**
14 Subordinates (should be) 3.05 1.44 –.04 .20** .22** –.08 .11 .10 .04 .15* .28** .53** .00
15 Peers (as is) 4.60 1.71 .02 .25** .08 .02 .26** .36** .06 .01 .35** .30** –.07
16 Peers (should be) 3.20 1.45 –.05 .14* .17** –.02 .02 .09 .09 .16* .28** .52** .09
17 Clients (as is) 4.28 1.80 .09 .19** –.11 .07 .33** .38** .09 –.01 .36** 19** –.09
18 Clients (should be) 2.68 1.43 .02 .01 –.11 –.12 .14* .10 –.06 .07 .21** .28** .18**
19 Group Focus (as is) 3.29 1.71 .03 .16* –.06 –.02 .25** .20** .36** .13* .32** .15* .01
20 Group Focus (should be) 2.00 1.01 –.13* .09 –.02 –.09 .22** .25** .11 .29** .18** .39** .20**
21 Individual Focus (as is) 2.26 1.27 –.06 –.12 –.06 .05 .04 –.01 .34** .16* .12 .07 .25**
22 Individual Focus (should be) 1.86 .98 –.05 –.20** –.09 .06 .05 .07 .15* .34** .08 .20** .35**
23 Methods Explicitness (as is) 2.50 .98 –.04 .15 .06 .10 .09 .09 .39** .30** .17** .12 .29**
24 Explicitness (should be) 1.49 .67 –.17** –.01 –.11 .01 .06 .14* .17** .39** .07 .37** .41**
25 Purposes Hard (as is) 3.10 1.35 .11 –.25** –.110 –.056 .04 –.01 .10 .15* .15* –.01 .14*
26 Hard (should be) 2.40 1.14 –.05 –.14* .03 –.06 .10 .22** .07 .16* .02 .10 .18**
27 Soft (as is) 2.64 1.09 .02 .25** .05 .01 .20** .15* .34** .19** .24** .20** .15*
28 Soft (should be) 1.57 .69 –.10 .01 –.06 .04 .11 .25** .11 .33** .06 .34** .34**
29 Feedback Communication (as is) 3.00 1.25 –.01 .12 .02 –.02 .25** .12 .39** .23** .18** .11 .14*
30 Communication (should be) 1.57 .69 –.15* –.05 –.11 –.01 .13* .17** .15* .40** .07 .38** .42**
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
barriers to women rising to top positions is a masculine/patriarchal corporate culture. One possible explanation for this widely agreed perception could be that, with the Anglo-Saxonization of HR practices (Ferner, Quintanilla, & Varul, 2001), male-domi-nated values in organizations have been unconsciously spread throughout the world via multinational enterprises and respective HRM practices. The fact that the evaluation of resulting organizational practices varies systematically according to gender across all investigated cultures indicates the high rel-evance of this single variable. As such, orga-nizations should not only take frequently
discussed and maybe—in an international work environment—more salient country-specific cultures into consideration, but also additionally bear in mind existing gender-specific cultures in order to design effective HRM practices on a global level.
With respect to the discussion portrayed earlier, concerning the concept of the “ideal” (male) manager (Koenig et al., 2011) and female managers’ coping strategies, it is important to note that while we find sev-eral gender-specific differences on the level of preferences (should be—five differing ele-ments), the perceptions of applied practices (as is) do not vary that much, which might
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 17
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
1
–.07 1
.10 .36** 1
.01 .80** .31** 1
.14* .34** .75** .42** 1
.04 .62** .09 .56** .12 1
.17** .20** .37** .16* .32** .39** 1
.04 .44** .06 .43** .14* .40** .03 1
.29** .06 .22** .09 .31** .11 .30** .33** 1
.18** –.07 –.01 –.04 .06 .01 –.03 .21** .23** 1
.50** –.14* .01 –.10 .08 –.09 .05 .10 .42** .45** 1
.29** .15* .06 .19** .13 .14* .05 .35** .22** .49** .25** 1
.55** –.12 .17** –.09 .17** –.07 .19** –.01 .48** .25** .56** .35** 1
.15* .08 .04 .03 .04 .03 .08 .11 –.01 .13* .16* .14* .08 1
.28** .11 .01 .09 .02 .06 .04 .18** .18** .19** .35** .22** .28** .33** 1
.11 .29** .24** .34** .25** .24** .12 .45** .18** .29** .01 .57** .11 .30** .18** 1
.43** –.02 .22** .01 .19** .02 .20** –.01 .42** .20** .43** .28** .68** .14* .40** .28** 1
.17** .19** .04 .18** .02 .19** .04 .43** .18** .32** .20** .56** .14* .21** .26** .57** .16* 1
.51** –.10 .17* –.06 .14* –.02 .22** .02 .50** .25** .57** .30** .78** .15* .33** .14* .70** .28**
be an indication of women’s adaptation in terms of practices, in spite of their conflict-ing preferences. However, an interesting finding on the as is level was found regard-ing the salary purposes whereby female man-agers, compared to male managers, perceive the determination of employees’ salaries of GPM to be less relevant. One possible expla-nation for this finding is that the correlation between high appraisal ratings and salary increases is indeed lower for women than for men (Hind & Baruch, 1997), which is also supported by the persisting gender pay gap found in many countries. In OECD countries, women on average earn 18 percent less than
men in full-time-jobs, and in nations such as Germany or the United States, the income difference is more than 20 percent and goes up to 40 percent in countries like Japan or Korea (OECD, 2008). As female managers have personally not experienced the link between performance and pay so much as male managers, they might assume that this applies to the performance management sys-tem as a whole.
Besides, in terms of two specific actors (the supervisor and subordinates), gender-related differences on the as is level were found. While male managers perceive subordinates’ feedback to be slightly more important,
18 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
T A B L E I I I MANOVAa: Gender-Specifi c Means, Standard Deviations, and Differences of GPM Elements
GPM Men Women
Category Element M SD M SD F b
Criteria Input (as is) 3.55 (1.16) 3.68 (1.28) 0.51
Input (should be) 3.42 (1.44) 3.32 (1.55) 0.12
Output (as is) 2.61 (1.34) 2.81 (1.53) 0.05
Output (should be) 2.08 (1.09) 2.13 (1.28) 0.51
Actors Self (as is) 3.55 (1.37) 3.65 (1.77) 1.34
Self (should be) 3.05 (1.41) 2.62 (1.35) 3.33
Supervisor (as is) 2.01 (1.07) 1.75 (1.00) 5.26*
Supervisor (should be) 1.97 (0.88) 1.77 (1.04) 3.95*
Subordinates (as is) 4.71 (1.69) 5.02 (1.70) 4.01*
Subordinates (should be) 3.09 (1.41) 2.98 (1.49) 0.05
Peers (as is) 4.57 (1.64) 4.65 (1.81) 0.45
Peers (should be) 3.26 (1.41) 3.11 (1.53) 0.06
Clients (as is) 4.15 (1.76) 4.48 (1.86) 1.36
Clients (should be) 2.66 (1.35) 2.71 (1.56) 0.02
Group Focus (as is) 3.24 (1.64) 3.35 (1.81) 0.09
Group Focus (should be) 2.10 (0.97) 1.83 (1.06) 5.97*
Individual Focus (as is) 2.32 (1.20) 2.16 (1.37) 0.60
Individual Focus (should be) 1.90 (0.24) 1.80 (1.06) 1.08
Methods Explicitness (as is) 2.53 (1.01) 2.45 (0.93) 0.20
Explicitness (should be) 1.58 (0.62) 1.34 (0.71) 11.64**
Purpose Salary Purposes (as is) 2.95 (1.60) 3.35 (1.85) 4.82*
Salary Purposes (should be) 2.54 (1.33) 2.55 (1.68) 0.01
Promotion Purposes (as is) 3.02 (1.50) 3.23 (1.59) 0.89
Promotion Purposes (should be) 2.35 (1.14) 2.10 (1.27) 2.81
Soft Purposes (as is) 2.62 (1.07) 2.66 (1.12) 0.16
Soft Purposes (should be) 1.63 (0.64) 1.49 (0.75) 4.40*
Feedback Communication (as is) 3.01 (1.27) 2.98 (1.22) 0.13
Communication (should be) 1.74 (0.79) 1.49 (0.79) 8.39**
Overall match of practices and preferences 3.66 (3.77) 4.92 (4.20) 6.18*
a Two-tailed tests.b F (1, 236).
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
female managers see a supervisor’s feedback as more important on the as is level, which indicates gender-specific practices (not pref-erences) in terms of who is assessing whom and needs more clarification.
It is interesting to note that for both groups, female and male managers, and besides the discussed gender-specific differences here, the
relation between the should be and as is scores shows similar patterns for all GPM elements on the level of the mean scores (see Table II), indicating that male and female managers both expect more from the currently applied GPM. This aspect has been assumed before (Milliman et al., 2002) and clearly needs fur-ther investigation.
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 19
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
While this study clearly contributes to the literature by providing new scales and inter-esting empirical results, which lead to fur-ther discussions on the gender specificity of organizations and possible disadvantages for female managers, it also has limitations such as the data collection being limited to a single MNE. While the advantage of this approach is that organizational influence factors can be controlled, it has to be proven whether these findings are also valid in other organizations. The gender specificity of the preferences could also be a result of the organizational culture of this particular French MNE. With regard to the impact of national culture, one could argue that, being a French MNE, French values dominate this particular organization and its practices across countries. We avoided the confounding effects of a standardized corporate culture by choosing a company with a localized approach in terms of per-formance management. Nevertheless, there is certainly a necessity for future research to validate these results using a more repre-sentative sample and more companies from various countries. However, looking at the representation of women in management positions in this organization (22 percent), there is no indication that this company dif-fers from others with respect to the underrep-resentation of female managers. For instance, the International Labour Organization (2004) suggests that, based on data from 48 coun-tries, between 20 and 40 percent of mana-gerial positions are occupied by women, indicating that the “male-dominated culture” label applies to most business organizations from various countries.
Conclusion
This empirical investigation has clearly shown that gender-specific differences in preferences for GPM practices exist, even across different cultural contexts. As called for by McKenna et al. (2011), this study was able to contribute some primary critical empirical evidence concerning GPM, sup-porting the ambition to increase paradig-matic diversity in GPM research by taking a gender perspective. It is important, however,
In addition, a study by Dalton and Ortegren (2011) on the relationship between gender and ethical responses suggests that women’s more ethical responses can be explained by the fact that they are generally more prone to socially desirable responses. This finding indicates that a systematically more critical view of women on GPM could be attributed to reasons other than their dis-satisfaction—namely to the possibility that some GPM practices, such as the soft pur-poses of GPM or team-based assessment, are considered socially more desirable. However, due to the procedural remedies that have been applied to avoid social desirability bias and certain limitations of the very study mentioned earlier (e.g., measuring ethical responses without any validation—for example, in terms of actual behavior), we argue that the impact of social desirability on our findings is not decisive. Nevertheless, further research is necessary to clarify this question.
Considering the implications of our find-ings, certain differentiations need to be made. At this stage of research, we are able to con-clude from our data that, across all GPM ele-ments, women are less satisfied with the existing male-oriented GPM system, which in turn has major implications for the retention and development of future female leaders. However, referring to the literature on male-oriented or gendered organizations (Britton, 2000), the question arises as to whether a mas-culine corporate culture is a sufficient condi-tion for discrimination against women in terms of promotion. In other words, does a GPM sys-tem that is in accordance with female prefer-ences automatically lead to the promotion of more women into management positions? We must acknowledge that this assumption can-not always hold. For instance, putting greater emphasis on the soft purposes of GPM may be in line with female preferences, but it does not necessarily increase their career opportunities directly. Instead of assuming that male-ori-ented organizations are per se discriminatory, researchers should conduct a systematic and differentiated analysis on how male-oriented HRM practices can or cannot potentially limit female career advancement.
20 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Studies that
focus on gender
differences, like
ours, are always in
danger of reinforcing
stereotypes
and neglecting
heterogeneity within
groups of men and
women. This problem
can only be reduced
partially by generally
raising awareness
and encouraging a
sensitive use of data
on gender issues.
are in fact counterproductive for the pro-motion of equal opportunities within orga-nizations (Dickens, 1998; Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000) and to explore whether these practices have a negative impact on the level of satisfaction of female managers and thereby potentially increase the prob-lem of recruiting and retaining talented women. Here, valid data supporting the identification of gender-related preferences of HRM practices could strengthen the claim that male-oriented organizational practices themselves should be revisited in order to identify which of them hinder the advancement of women to top manage-ment positions. This would include a much broader approach than just looking at pro-motion decisions, career path, or compen-sation as individual HR practices.
If the results found in this investiga-tion hold in future research as well, this has strong implications for managerial practice inasmuch that the clear empirical picture found across nearly all GPM dimensions pro-vides a strong message that even after many years of gender-related discussions in HRM, organizations are still intensively gendered. By conducting GPM in this way (i.e., without including female preferences in the design of this tool), organizations are in danger of further institutionalizing gender discrimina-tion. Although HR professionals and govern-ment officials have encouraged companies to change the norms and values in a way that minimizes discriminatory forces, organi-zational practices that may account for the so-called “glass ceiling” seem to persist over time (Goodman et al., 2003). As long as com-panies do not go beyond the usual measures, such as training or mentoring programs for women, they will only be able to address the symptoms, not the roots of the prob-lem (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). In order to make a decisive difference in the future, all HRM practices would need to be reconsid-ered with respect to the impact they have on gender discrimination.
Optimistic perspectives include Good-man et al. (2003), who state that “. . . the sub-stantial presence of women in management jobs of all types indicates that the process
to mention that our intention is not to artifi-cially exaggerate differences between male and female managers (alpha bias) (Powell, 2011). In line with Powell (2011), and our empirical data, which implies gender simi-larities for some elements, we certainly acknowledge that gender differences con-cerning some issues are larger, whereas they
might be nonexistent for others. Studies that focus on gender dif-ferences, like ours, are always in danger of reinforcing stereotypes and neglecting heterogeneity within groups of men and women. This problem can only be reduced partially by generally raising awareness and encouraging a sen-sitive use of data on gender issues.
Although we have outlined the limitations of the empirical inves-tigation in only one MNE, these results nonetheless provide strong evidence that certain HRM mea-sures—here GPM— correspond better with the preferences of male managers than those of female managers, and thus they reflect, at least to a certain extent, male-oriented management systems. Of course, this study needs to be duplicated in other organizations and also in other countries, but if the results do indeed confirm our findings, this has important implications for future research and for managerial practice.
As the sample size of this investigation is small, more data
are needed in order to generate more valid knowledge. However, for future research, not only should researchers duplicate this study in other organizational or national settings, but they also should establish whether, how, and to what extent other HRM practices reflect male preferences. There are first indications that this is the case for recruitment (Powell, 2011) and development (training and career deci-sions) (Gallos, 1996). Most importantly, researchers need to investigate further to what extent such gendered HRM practices
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 21
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
needed in order to generate organizational change are confident and authentic female managers who are ready to articulate their preferences, although they might not—in the first instance—seem to fit into existing norms in business settings. This is a central tenet to eliminating the barriers that sur-round female managers, and to pave the way for future generations of women.
of deinstitutionalizing sex segregation in management is well on its way” (Goodman et al., 2003, p. 476). However, this is not an automatic process; rather, discriminatory HR practices need to be identified systemati-cally and stopped, while the career advance-ment of female managers must be a priority of top management in organizations as well as of professional HR bodies. Above all, most
MARION FESTING is a professor of human resource management and intercultural
leadership at ESCP Europe in Berlin, Germany. She earned her PhD from the Faculty of
Business Administration and Economics at the University of Paderborn, Germany. Her
research interests include international human resource management with a special em-
phasis on strategies, careers, compensation, and global performance management in
differing cultural and institutional contexts.
LENA KNAPPERT is an assistant professor of Organizational Behaviour at Ozyegin
University in Istanbul, Turkey. She earned her PhD at the Chair of Human Resource
Management and Intercultural Leadership at ESCP Europe in Berlin, Germany, where
she was working as a research assistant. Her research interests focus on cross-cultural
organizational behavior and international human resource management. Lena was a vis-
iting professor at Grenoble Graduate School of Business, France and received consul-
tancy experience in Germany and Singapore.
ANGELA KORNAU is a research assistant at the Chair of Human Resource Management
and Intercultural Leadership at ESCP Europe in Berlin, Germany. Her research interests
include diversity issues—in particular, women in management and the “glass ceiling.”
She holds a diploma in international economics from Tuebingen University in Germany.
ReferencesAguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (Vol. 3).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1993). Women in management:
Organizational socialization and assessment prac-
tices that prevent career advancement. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1(2), 68–83.
Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (2005). Managing per-
formance: Performance management in action.
London, UK: CIPD.
Axelson, R. D., Solow, C. M., Ferguson, K. J., & Cohen,
M. B. (2010). Assessing implicit gender bias in med-
ical student performance evaluations. Evaluation &
the Health Professions, 33, 365–385.
Aycan, Z. (2005). The interplay between cultural and insti-
tutional/structural contingencies in human resource
management practices. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 16, 1083–1119.
Bajdo, L. M., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Perceptions of
organizational culture and women’s advancement
in organizations: A cross cultural examination. Sex
Roles, 45, 399–414.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The
transformational and transactional leadership
of men and women. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 45, 5–34.
Bauer, C. C., & Baltes, B. B. (2002). Reducing the
effects of gender stereotypes on performance
evaluations. Sex Roles, 47, 465–476.
Björkman, I. (2002). The diffusion of human resource
practices among Chinese fi rms: The role of western
multinational corporations. In W. Malcolm (Ed.),
The future of Chinese management (pp. 43–60).
Portland, OR: Frank Cass.
Book, E. W. (2000). Why the best man for this job is a
woman. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
22 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Truxillo, D. M. (1986).
Effects of ratee sex and purpose of appraisal on the
accuracy of performance evaluations. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 7, 225–241.
Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences
in leadership: How real are they? Academy of
Management Review, 11, 118–127.
Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The
leadership styles of women and men. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 781–797.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen,
M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and
laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis
comparing women and men. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 569–598.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and
leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Elsesser, K. M., & Lever, J. (2011). Does gender bias
against female leaders persist? Quantitative and
qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human
Relations, 64, 1555–1578.
Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s
social constructions of gender identity at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589–634.
Engle, A. D., Dowling, P. J., & Festing, M. (2008).
State of origin: Research in global performance
management, a proposed research domain and
emerging implications. European Journal of
International Management, 2, 153–169.
Fee, A., McGrath-Champ, S., & Yang, X. (2011).
Expatriate performance management and fi rm
internationalization: Australian multinationals in
China. Asia Pacifi c Journal of Human Resources,
49, 365–384.
Ferner, A., Quintanilla, J., & Varul, M. Z. (2001).
Country-of-origin effects, host-country effects, and
the management of HR in multinationals: German
companies in Britain and Spain. Journal of World
Business, 36, 107–127.
Ferris, G. R., & Treadway, D. C. (2007). Culture diver-
sity and performance appraisal systems. In D. L.
Stone & E. F. Stone-Romero (Eds.), The infl uence of
culture on human resource management processes
and practices (pp. 135–156). New York, NY, and
London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Festing, M., Knappert, L., Dowling, P. J., & Engle,
A. D. (2012). Country-specifi c profi les in global
performance management—A contribution
to balancing global standardization and local
adaptation. Thunderbird International Business
Review.
Boselie, P., Farndale, E., & Paauwe, J. (2012).
Performance management. In C. Brewster &
W. Mayrhofer (Eds.), Handbook of research on
comparative human resource management
(pp. 369–392). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Britton, D. M. (2000). The epistemology of the
gendered organization. Gender and Society, 14,
419–434.
Byrne, B. M., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2010). Testing for
measurement and structural equivalence in large-
scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue
of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing,
10, 107–132.
Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender
diversity in the boardroom and fi rm fi nancial
performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83,
435–451.
Cascio, W. F. (2012). Global performance management
systems. In G. Stahl, I. Björkman, & S. Morris
(Eds.), Handbook of research in international
human resource management (2nd ed.).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Chapman, J. B. (1975). Comparison of male and
female leadership styles. Academy of Management
Journal, 18, 645–650.
Claus, L., & Briscoe, D. (2008). Employee perform-
ance management across borders: A review of
relevant academic literature. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 11, 175–196.
Cooke, F. L. (2010). Women’s participation in employ-
ment in Asia: A comparative analysis of China,
India, Japan and South Korea. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 21, 2249–2270.
Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences
in ethics research: The importance of controlling
for the social desirability response bias. Journal of
Business Ethics, 103, 73–93.
Davidson, M. J., & Burke, R. J. (Eds.). (2000). Women
in management. Current research issues (Vol. 2).
London, UK: Sage.
Davies-Netzley, S. A. (1998). Women above the glass
ceiling: Perceptions on corporate mobility and strat-
egies for success. Gender and Society, 12, 339–355.
De Cieri, H. (2009). Gender issues: Women in interna-
tional management. In P. Sparrow (Ed.), Handbook
of international human resource management
(pp. 189–212). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Dickens, L. (1998). What HRM means for gender equality.
Human Resource Management Journal, 8(1), 23–40.
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 23
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Hood, J. N., & Koberg, C. S. (1994). Patterns of dif-
ferential assimilation and acculturation for women
in business organizations. Human Relations, 47,
159–181.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman,
P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousand Oaks, CA; London, UK; New Delhi,
India: Sage.
Hox, J. J., & Maas, C. J. M. (2001). The accuracy of
multilevel structural equation modeling with pseu-
dobalanced groups and small samples. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8,
157–174.
Iannello, K. P. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy:
Feminist intervention in organization theory and
practice. New York, NY, and London, UK: Routledge.
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2004).
Breaking through the glass ceiling. Geneva,
Switzerland: Author.
Jirjahn, U., & Stephan, G. (2004). Gender, piece rates
and wages: Evidence from matched employer-
employee data. Cambridge Journal of Economics,
28, 683–704.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on
group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to
token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82,
965–990.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari,
T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine?
A meta-analysis of three research paradigms.
Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642.
Lindholm, N. (2000). National culture and per-
formance management in MNC subsidiar-
ies. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 29(4), 45–66.
London, M., Larsen, H. H., & Thisted, L. N. (1999).
Relationships between feedback and self-develop-
ment. Group & Organization Management, 24(5),
5–27.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing
the corporate ladder: Do female and male execu-
tives follow the same route? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 86–101.
Maas, V. S., & Torres-González, R. (2011). Subjective
performance evaluation and gender discrimination.
Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 667–681.
Maddock, S., & Parkin, D. (1994). Gender cultures:
How they affect men and women at work. In M. J.
Davidson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in manage-
ment: Current research issues (Vol. 1, pp. 29–40).
London, UK: Paul Chapman.
Fletcher, C. (1999). The implications of research on
gender differences in self-assessment and 360
degree appraisal. Human Resource Management
Journal, 9, 39–46.
Gallos, J. V. (1996). Exploring women’s develop-
ment: Implications for career, theory, practice,
and research. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S.
Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp.
110–158). Cambridge, UK; New York, NY; Melbourne,
Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Gardiner, M., & Tiggemann, M. (1999). Gender differ-
ences in leadership style, job stress and mental
health in male- and female-dominated indus-
tries. Journal of Occupational and Organisational
Psychology, 72, 301–315.
Gneezy, U., Leonard, K. L., & List, J. A. (2009). Gender
differences in competition: Evidence from a mat-
rilineal and patriarchal society. Econometria, 77,
1637–1664.
Goodman, J. S., Fields, D. L., & Blum, T. C. (2003).
Cracks in the glass ceiling: In what kinds of organi-
zations do women make it to the top? Group &
Organization Management, 28, 475–501.
Günther, S. (2004). Führungsfrauen im Management.
Erfolgsmerkmale und Barrieren in ihrer
Berufslaufbahn. Berlin, Germany: Logos Verlag.
Harkness, J., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Johnson, T.
P. (2003). Questionnaire design in comparative
research. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, &
P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods
(pp. 19–35). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hedge, J. W., Borman, W. C., & Birkeland, S. A. (2001).
History and development of multisource feed-
back as a methodology. In D. W. Bracken, C. W.
Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of
multisource feedback (pp. 15–33). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription:
How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent
up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social
Issues, 57, 657–674.
Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women’s
ways of leadership. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Hind, P., & Baruch, Y. (1997). Gender variations in
perceptions of performance appraisal. Women in
Management Review, 12, 276–289.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development
practices in the study of organizations. Journal of
Management, 21, 967–988.
Holder, T. (1998). Women in nontraditional occupations:
Information-seeking during organizational entry.
Journal of Business Communication, 33(1), 9–26.
24 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
stereotypic perceptions of women and men
leaders. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12, 25–49.
Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. (1993). Moderators of
sex bias in the performance appraisal process:
A cognitive analysis. Journal of Management, 13,
113–126.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a busi-
ness case for diversity. Academy of Management
Executive, 11(3), 21–31.
Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard
Business Review, 68(6), 119–125.
Rothschild, J., & Davies, C. (1994). Organizations
through the lens of gender: Introduction to the
special issue. Human Relations, 47, 583–590.
Ruderman, M. N. (2006). Developing women
leaders. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Inspiring leaders (pp. 320–340). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leader-
ship (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex
role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,
57, 95–100.
Schick Case, S. (1994). Gender differences in com-
munication and behaviour in organizations. In
M. J. Davidson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Women in
management. Current research issues (Vol. 1,
pp. 144–165). London, UK: Paul Chapman.
Shen, J. (2004). International performance appraisals:
Policies, practices and determinants in the case of
Chinese multinational companies. International
Journal of Manpower, 25, 547–563.
Shen, J. (2010). Employees’ satisfaction with HRM in
Chinese privately-owned enterprises. Asia Pacifi c
Business Review, 16, 339–354.
Singh, V., Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2002).
Gender and impression management: Playing the
promotion game. Journal of Business Ethics, 37,
77–89.
Smith, J. L., Paul, D., & Paul, R. (2007). No place for a
woman: Evidence for gender bias in evaluations of
presidential candidates. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 29, 225–233.
Stewart, L. P., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1982). Differential
factors infl uencing the hierarchical level and
number of promotions of males and females within
an organization. Academy of Management Journal,
25, 586–597.
Maurer, T. J., & Taylor, M. A. (1994). Is sex by itself
enough? An exploration of gender bias issues
in performance appraisal. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60,
231–251.
McKenna, S., Richardson, J., & Manroop, L. (2011).
Alternative paradigms and the study and prac-
tice of performance management and evalua-
tion. Human Resource Management Review, 21,
148–157.
Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. (2000). A modest
manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard
Business Review, 78(1), 126–136.
Milliman, J., Nason, S., Zhu, C., & De Cieri, H. (2002).
An exploratory assessment of the purposes of per-
formance appraisals in North and Central America
and the Pacifi c Rim. Asia Pacifi c Journal of Human
Resources, 40, 105–122.
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1987,
August). Executive women: Substance plus style.
Psychology Today, pp. 18–26.
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2011). Gender and
competition. Annual Review of Economics, 3,
601–630.
Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior
management positions: Understanding the scarcity
of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27,
321–334.
Offermann, L. R., & Beil, C. (1992). Achievement
styles of women leaders and their peers: Toward
an understanding of women and leadership.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 37–56.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). (2008). Gender and sustaina-
ble development: Maximising the economic, social
and environmental role of women. Paris, France:
Author.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., &
Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Powell, G. N. (2011). Women & men in management
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfi eld, A. D. (1994). Investigating
the “glass ceiling” phenomenon: An empirical
study of actual promotions to top management.
Academy of Management Journal, 37, 68–86.
Prime, J. L., Carter, N. M., & Welbourne, T. M. (2009).
Women “take care,” men “take charge”: Managers’
GENDER-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES IN GLOBAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 25
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
leadership styles: A fi eld study. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
581–598.
Van Engen, M. L., & Willemsen, T. M. (2004). Sex and
leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research
published in the 1990s. Psychological Reports,
94(1), 3–18.
Varma, A., Budhwar, P. S., & DeNisi, A. (Eds.). (2008).
Performance management systems: A global
perspective. London, UK: Routledge.
Varma, A., & Stroh, L. K. (2001). The impact of
same-sex LMX dyads on performance evaluations.
Human Resource Management, 40, 309–320.
Zahidi, S., & Ibarra, H. (2010). The corporate gen-
der gap report 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Economic Forum.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and
outcome: Gender differences in the assessment
of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18,
83–98.
Terborg, J. R., & Shingledecker, P. (1983). Employee
reactions to supervision and work evaluation as
a function of subordinate and manager sex. Sex
Roles, 9, 813–824.
Terjesen, S., & Singh, V. (2008). Female presence on
corporate boards: A multi-country study of envi-
ronmental context. Journal of Business Ethics, 83,
55–63.
Townley, B. (1990, December). A discriminating approach
to appraisal. Personnel Management, pp. 34–37.
Van Engen, M. L., Van der Leeden, R., &
Willemsen, T. M. (2001). Gender, context and