Performance management of Australian and Singaporean expatriates

Woods, Peter

doi:10.1108/01437720310491062

Cited by 22 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, there is evidence that in the use of appraisal systems it is the cultural differences that explain most variation (see, for example, Bailey, Chen and Dou 1997;Hempel 2001). Other examples of HRM processes where cultural differences play a significant and perhaps a decisive role include training and communication (Papalexandris and Chalikias 2002), performance management systems (Woods 2003), personnel selection (Huo, Huang and Napier 2002) and talent management (Vaiman and Holden 2013), among many others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

How far do cultural differences explain the differences between nations? Implications for HRM

Vaiman

Brewster

2014

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

How far do cultural differences explain the differences between nations? Implications for HRM

Vaiman

Brewster

2014

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hence, the starting point for understanding PM is to identify the organization's mission, vision and strategic directions, to understand how PM is integrated into other key HRM functions and how individual and team objectives link to these processes. The PM cycle captures employee performance objectives and expectations and monitors, measures and evaluates this performance (Woods 2003;Shen 2004;Wilson 2004). In this process, individual performance appraisal (PA) is a key component (Wiese and Buckley 1998).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing employee performance in an emerging economy: perceptions of Vietnamese managers

Stanton

Pham

2013

Asia Pacific Business Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative study explores employee performance management (PM) in Vietnam from the perspectives of Vietnamese managers in three case study organizations: a state-owned enterprise, a joint venture and a private Vietnamese company. Findings suggest that western PM practices and techniques are being utilized in all three organizations and that PM is seen as an essential and strategic component of human resource management policy. These findings suggest an increasing awareness of PM in Vietnamese enterprises and a desire to improve competitiveness by developing a highly skilled and high-performing workforce.

show abstract

“…PM is an important and widely recognized HRM practice that is used in many companies. Lindholm (, p. 45) describes the key elements of performance management, naming performance appraisal as the central element, accompanied by “… the communication of company strategy through individual objective setting, links to training and development planning, and possibly compensation.” Completing the picture, other scholars list purposes and criteria, certain measures, and appraisal methods, as well as the role of actors and feedback communication as the characterizing features of performance management systems (C. Bailey & Fletcher, ; Nankervis & Compton, ; Woods, ). This article uses the term performance management in line with this broad approach, interpreting it as “an extension of performance appraisal” (Lindholm, , p. 45).…”

Section: Performance Management From a Contextual Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Country‐Specific Profiles of Performance Management in China, Germany, and the United States—An Empirical Test

Festing

Knappert

2014

Thunderbird Intl Bus Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The vast majority of the literature on performance management (PM) chooses a contextual perspective, focusing on the cross-country comparison of single elements of the PM system. Simultaneously, a conceptual basis and an encompassing comprehension of country-specifi c peculiarities are lacking. Based on a suggested conceptualization of the elements of PM (criteria, actors, methods, purposes, feedback) and hypotheses developed from an encompassing literature review, the authors present empirical fi ndings from a quantitative study including 167 managers from multinational enterprise (MNE) subsidiaries in three culturally and institutionally diverse major economies (Germany, United States, and China). Contrary to what the literature suggests about the local peculiarities of PM, the results of the present study show signifi cant country-specifi c differences in only 6 out of 16 TABLE 3 Hypotheses and Results Result Hypothesis Analysis (see Table 1 and Table 2) Final Decision 1a: Performance evaluation criteria used in China are primarily network and output oriented. M Network = 3.59 (above scale mean) M Output = 2.51, M Teamwork = 2.71, p = 0.37 1b: Performance evaluation criteria used in the United States are primarily teamwork and output oriented. M Output = 2.64, M Teamwork = 2.51, p = 0.52 M Output = 2.64, M Expertise = 2.91, p = 0.11 M Expertise = 2.91, M Teamwork = 2.51, p = 0.01 Partly 1c: Performance evaluation criteria used in Germany are primarily expertise and output oriented. M Output = 2.52, M Teamwork = 2.89, p = 0.15 M Output = 2.52, M Expertise = 2.70, p = 0.48 M Expertise = 2.70, M Teamwork = 2.89, p = 0.43 1d: The three countries do not differ in terms of the high relevance of outputoriented criteria. F 2,159 = 1.62, p = 0.20 2a: In China, performance evaluation is carried out primarily by the superior. M Supervisor = 2.04, M Others = 3.91, p < 0.001 M Supervisor = 2.04, M Self = 3.29, p < 0.001 2b: In China, appraisals by clients, subordinates, peers, and the assessed him-/ herself (360-degree feedback) are of low relevance. M Others = 3.91 (above scale mean) 2c: In China, the importance of group-and individual-focused appraisals is equally high. M Team = 2.94, M Individual = 2.31, p < 0.05 2d: In the United States, performance evaluation is carried out primarily by the superior. M Supervisor = 1.77, M Others = 4.80, p < 0.001 M Supervisor = 1.77, M Self = 3.77, p < 0.001 2e: In the United States, performance evaluation by the assessed him-/herself, clients, subordinates, and peers (360-degree feedback) is of high relevance. M Others = 4.80 (above scale mean) 2f: In the United States, appraisals are primarily individual focused. M Team = 3.34, M Individual = 1.97, p < 0.001 2g: In Germany, performance evaluation is carried out primarily by the superior. M Supervisor = 2.18, M Others = 3.60, p < 0.001 M Supervisor = 2.18, M Self = 3.09, p < 0.01 2h: In Germany, the appraisal by an assessed him-/herself, subordinates, peers, and clients (360-degree feedback) is of low relevance. M Others = 3.60...

show abstract

Performance management of Australian and Singaporean expatriates

Cited by 22 publications

References 25 publications

How far do cultural differences explain the differences between nations? Implications for HRM

How far do cultural differences explain the differences between nations? Implications for HRM

Managing employee performance in an emerging economy: perceptions of Vietnamese managers

Country‐Specific Profiles of Performance Management in China, Germany, and the United States—An Empirical Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About