Editing Performance appraisal (section)

==Cross-cultural implications==

Performance appraisal (PA) systems, and the premises of which they were based, that have been formed and regarded as effective in the United States may not have the transferability for effectual utilization in other countries or [[culture]]s, and vice versa.{{sfn|Hofstede|2001|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}} Performance "appraisal is thought to be deeply rooted in the [[Norm (social)|norms]], values, and beliefs of a [[society]]".<ref name="Seddon">{{cite journal |last1=Seddon |first1=John |title=Assumptions, Culture and Performance Appraisal |journal=Journal of Management Development |date=March 1987 |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=47–54 |doi=10.1108/eb051645 }}</ref> "Appraisal reflects attitudes towards motivation and performance (self) and relationships (e.g. peers, subordinates, supervisors, organization), all of which vary from one country to the next".<ref name="Chiang">{{cite journal |last1=Chiang |first1=Flora F. T. |last2=Birtch |first2=Thomas A. |title=Appraising Performance across Borders: An Empirical Examination of the Purposes and Practices of Performance Appraisal in a Multi-Country Context |journal=Journal of Management Studies |date=November 2010 |volume=47 |issue=7 |pages=1365–1393 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00937.x }}</ref> Therefore, appraisal should be in conjunction with cultural norms, values, and beliefs in order to be operative.<ref name="Sparrow">{{cite journal |last1=Sparrow |first1=Paul |last2=Schuler |first2=Randall S. |last3=Jackson |first3=Susan E. |title=Convergence or divergence: human resource practices and policies for competitive advantage worldwide |journal=The International Journal of Human Resource Management |date=May 1994 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=267–299 |doi=10.1080/09585199400000019 }}</ref> The deep-seated norms, values and beliefs in different cultures affect employee motivation and perception of organizational equity and justice. In effect, a PA system created and considered effectual in one country may not be an appropriate assessment in another cultural region.<ref name="Chiang"/>

For example, some countries and cultures value the trait of assertiveness and personal accomplishment while others instead place more merit on cooperation and interpersonal connection. Countries scoring high on assertiveness consider PA to be a way of assuring equity among employees so that higher performing employees receive greater rewards or higher salaries.<ref name="Chiang"/> Countries scoring low on assertiveness but higher in interpersonal relations may not like the social separation and pay inequity of higher/lower performing employees; employees from this more cooperative rather than individualistic culture place more concern on interpersonal relationships with other employees rather than on individual interests.<ref name="Chiang"/> High assertive countries value performance feedback for self-management and effectiveness purposes while countries low in assertiveness view performance feedback as "threatening and obtrusive".<ref name="Chiang"/><ref name="Sully">{{cite journal |last1=Sully De Luque |first1=Mary F. |last2=Sommer |first2=Steven M. |title=The Impact of Culture on Feedback-Seeking Behavior: An Integrated Model and Propositions |journal=Academy of Management Review |date=October 2000 |volume=25 |issue=4 |pages=829–849 |doi=10.5465/amr.2000.3707736 }}</ref> In this case, the PA of the high assertive countries would likely not be beneficial for countries scoring lower in assertiveness to employ. However, countries scoring lower in assertiveness could employ PA for purposes of improving long-term communication development within the organization such as clarifying job objectives, guide training and development plans, and lessen the gap between job performance and organizational expectations.{{sfn|Cardy|Dobbins|1994|p={{page needed|date=September 2024}}}}