Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7

Metode Similar cu alte studii recente culturale, acest studiu a adoptat o abordare mixta de metode (de exemplu, Elbanna

i Copilului, 2007; Geppert et al, 2003;. Luo, 2004; Yaconi, 2001). Utilizand att metode cantitative i calitative de cercetare judectoreasc este deosebit de avantajos pentru reglajul fin al stadiilor incipiente ale cercetarii trans-nationale (de exemplu, selectarea eantionului, rafinarea msuri i instrumente cantitative), rezultatele triangulatiei, precum si consolidarea rigorii i robusteii livrabileli de cercetare (Creswell, 2002 ). O cercetare nationala de design necesita atentia asupra unui numar de importanta complexitate metodologica, pe langa cele ale unui singur studiu national. In etapa de proiectare de cercetare, am urmat indrumarea oferita de cercetarea transnationala prioritara pentru a asigura o abordarea robusta, stiintifica si echilibrata. Aceasta a inclus asigurarea comparabilitatii de probe si instrumente de cercetare, sondaj de traducere, potrivirea probelor, calendarului, si procesului de colectare a datelor. O revizuire concisa a strategiilor specifice de proiectare de cercetare poate fi gasita in alta parte (de exemplu, Milliman si Von Glinow, 1998; Punnett i Shenkar, 2004; Van de Vijver i Leung, 1997). Am luat, de asemenea, msuri de precauie suplimentare pentru a mbunti validitatea, fidelitatea si echivalenta de masurare generala, dupa cum urmeaza. Selectarea eantionului i Design Strategia noastr de prelevare de probe necesare o analiz atent a factorilor cum ar fi cultura, ara, i selectarea eantionului populaiei. Am nceput prin identificarea dimensiunilor culturii naionale care urmeaz s fie utilizate ca lentile in explorarea consecinelor culturii n scopuri de evaluare i practici. O examinare aprofundata a muncii empirice anterioare a dus la selectarea evitarea incertitudinii asertivitate,, n-grup colectivism, distana i puterea. Aceste dimensiuni au fost alese pentru relevana lor pentru evaluarea performanelor, validittea lor conceptuala, metodologic, i empiric, precum i pentru diferenele pe care le provoac ntre ri. n primul rnd, cercetarea prealabil confirm relevana acestora pentru practicile de resurse umane, n general, i de evaluare a performanelor, n special (de exemplu, Elenkov, 1998; Milliman et al, 1998;. Ramamoorthy i Carroll, 1998;. Snape et al, 1998). Ele reflect modul n care indivizii se vad (percep) (asertivitate), relaiile lor cu colegii (n grupul-colectivismului) i superiorii (distana de putere), precum i normele i procedurile de companie (evitarea incertitudinii). n al doilea rnd, conceptualitatea lor a fost verificata, testata pe scar larg, i empiric validata n numeroase eco-culturale investigaii, inclusiv mai multe discipline diferite (de exemplu, Kwok i Tadesse, 2006; Murphy, 1999; Newburry i Yakova, 2006; Oliver i Cravens, 1999) Alte dimensiuni independent ale lui Hofstede (2001) iHouse et al. (2004), mai puin relevante pentru evaluarea performanelor profesionale, sau care au primit mai puina atentie empirica, nu au fost considerate aici. O incercare de a acoperi toate dimensiunile de cultura este, de asemenea, dincolo de domeniul de aplicare al oricrui studiu. Astfel, dup cum anterioarele studii eco-culturale ne-au alertat, dimensiunile selectate influeneaz scopurile i practicile de evaluare (de exemplu, surse de feedback, comunicare sau stilul folosit pentru a furniza evaluare, de luare a deciziilor), mentin variaii substaniale n evaluarea din diferite culturi, i ne permit s obinenm sprijin teoretic si ampiric suficient pentru dezvoltarea ipotezelor

de mai sus (de exemplu, Aycan, 2003; Milliman et al, 1998;. Snape et al, 1998;. Walker i Dimmock, 2000). Apoi, am avut nevoie sa ne asiguram c rile selectate au fost adecvate pentru testare ipoteze. Reflectnd asupra faptului c practicile europene i asiatice de resurse umane difera de cele din America de Nord, am atras pe orientrile oferite de locul de munc mai devreme, precum i faptul c n grupuri culturale pentru a selecta rile de prelevare de probe (Bowen et al, 2002.; Casa et al, 2004;. Ronen i Shenkar, 1985) [1] ateptarea este c practicile de gestionare pot fi transferate ntre ri n acelai cluster (egAnglo, confucianist Asia, Europa Nordic).. Deoarece Casa et al lui. (2004) de lucru prevzut nu numai o reflecie up-to-data de modul n care rile difer de-a lungul dimensiunilor, ci se bazeaz, de asemenea pe fundaii solide conceptuale, metodologice, i empiric, am folosit gruprile lor ar i partituri ca proxy-uri similare cu managementul internaional alte studii (de ex Chow, 2002;. Myloni et al, 2004). Selecia noastr iniial a inclus ri care provoac att asemnri, ct i deosebiri de-a lungul dimensiunilor emis ipoteza. Anumite ri (de exemplu, Finlanda i Suedia; Statele Unite ale Americii, Canada, Marea Britanie i, HK i Singapore) au fost selectate pentru c au mprtit asemnrile culturale (nordic Europa, anglo, i confucianist Asia), n timp ce altele (de exemplu, Finlanda versus HK) au fost selectate pentru c a obtine distan mai mare culturale (a se vedea tabelul I). Potrivit Van de Vijver i Leung (1997), prin testarea culturilor care provoac similitudini, putem constata capacitatea de predictie de constructe culturale n raport cu diferitele aspecte ale evaluare a performanelor. n cazul n care variaia exist ntre culturi similare, atunci acest lucru are implicaii pentru capacitatea de predictie a dimensiunii culturale relevante. Acesta subliniaz, de asemenea posibila influen a altor fore divergente. n schimb, prin testarea unui bazin de culturi diferite, putem explora dac orice universalitate sau tema comuna emerge. n cele din urm, am considerat selecie a eantionului populaiei noastre. Pentru a izola mai uor efectele culturii, am limitat studiul la o singur industrie, sectorul bancar. Limitarea de studiu ntr-o singur industrie are mai multe avantaje. De exemplu, aceasta ajuta cu comparabilitatea i din funciile bancare sunt relativ omogene, diferene n performane evaluare pot fi detectate mai uor dect ar fi cazul ntr-un studiu multiindustrial (Hofstede, 2001; Sparrow, 1996). Alegand o singur industrie, de asemenea, parial controale pentru posibila influen a unei game de alte variabile intricate, cum ar fi natura de locuri de munc.Motivul nostru pentru selectarea angajailor bncii incluse, de asemenea, extrem de internaionala natura industriei, influena pe care o exercit asupra economiilor rilor selectate, precum i restructurarea demn de menionat i schimbrile care le-a suferit n ultimul deceniu. Mai mult dect att, capitalul uman rmne una dintre cele cteva rute pentru realizarea i susinerea avantajul competitiv (Wright et al., 2001). Avnd n vedere intensitatea lor de munc, un sistem performant care permite bancii evaluarea i recompensarea unui comportament care sprijin realizarea prioritilor de performan este, prin urmare, crucial pentru succesul su.

Cu populaia determinata, ajustri ulterioare la selectarea rii au fost fcute prin examinarea comparabila a nivelurilor ocuprii forei de munc i dimensiunea bancare, reglementri i legislaie bancar, condiiile economice, i starea de apreciere [2] n unele ri., Evaluarea a fost neateptat de absenta ( de exemplu, China) sau ntr-o etap incipient (de exemplu, Japonia), restrnge posibilitatea de a obine un eantion reprezentativ. Interesant, dei Japonia a avut un management destul de matur i structura organizaional pentru zeci de ani, orientat spre performan de evaluare a angajailor i a sistemelor de compensare sau Seikashugi (care include evaluarea performanelor profesionale) au fost ad-hoc, n utilizare limitat, sau exclusiv pentru numai anumite niveluri ale ierarhiei (Japonia Institutul pentru Politici andTraining Muncii, 2004). Procedura a dat n cele din urm un eantion pentru apte ri care acoper trei grupe culturale anglo - (Canada, Marea Britanie, Statele Unite ale Americii i), confucianist Asia (Hong Kong i Singapore), i nordice Europa (Finlanda i Suedia) [3] (Casa et al. , 2004).

SurveyMeasures. O examinare aprofundat a literaturii de evaluare a identificat msuri pentru faza cantitativ a studiului. Aplicabilitatea i complexitatea msurilor adoptate au fost apoi verificate n domeniu, cu specialisti in resurse umane. Acesta a fost un pas important n protocolul nostru ca cercetatorii de obicei nu cer practicani ceea ce ei privesc ca cele mai importante aspecte de apreciere, limitnd astfel impactul cercetrii privind practica (Arvey i Murphy, 1998). Politica de evaluare i alte documente pertinente au fost, de asemenea, au fost inspectate n organizaiile participante. nainte de a difuzrii sale, sondajul a fost pre-testat cu cinci profesioniti n resurse umane din fiecare ar. Testele pilot au fost, de asemenea, ntreprinse cu angajaii bncii aproximativ 20 din fiecare ar. Avnd n vedere varietatea de termeni tehnici utilizai, terminologiilor multiple i un glosar de termeni au fost incluse n chestionar. Traducerea din limba nainte i napoi a fost, de asemenea, utilizate pentru a asigura sensul echivalent (de exemplu, HK, Finlanda i Suedia). Un site a acionat ca o surs de referin suplimentar pentru participani. 1376 F. F. T. Chiang i T. A. Birtch 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd i Societatea pentru Avansarea de Studii de Management Paii de mai sus s-au ntreprins pentru a mbunti n primul rnd validitatea de construct, asigur comparabilitatea n ntregul eantion, s ncurajeze rspunsuri precise i fiabile, asigur echivalena, redefinii instrumentului de anchet, i pentru a minimiza potenialul de rspuns prtinire. ntrebrile sondajului au fost grupate n dou categorii principale, i anume scopurile i practicile de evaluare. Articole pentru scopuri au fost extrase din surse utilizate pe scar larg i empiric validat (McEvoy i Cascio, 1990;. Milliman et al, 1995). Respondenii au fost rugai s indice gradul n care evaluarea organizaiei lor de performan a fost utilizat pentru (1) evaluarea performanelor anterioare; (2) determinarea creterile anuale salariale; (3) luarea deciziilor de

promovare; (4) de performan de difereniere; (5) clarificarea obiectivelor de performan ; (6) identificarea punctelor forte i a punctelor slabe individuale; (7) oferirea de feedback i (8) evaluarea nevoilor de formare i de dezvoltare. Principalul factor de componenta de analiz, folosind rotaie varimax, a fost efectuat pe rspunsurile. Elementele care au avut sarcini de mai puin de 0.40 au fost eliminate din analizele ulterioare. Soluia a dat doi factori, evaluare i comunicare-dezvoltare, care au reprezentat 69 la suta din totalul varianei. Estimrile fiabilitatea Coeficientul alfa Cronbach () pentru factorii au fost 0.76 i 0.83, respectiv. Elemente cu privire la practicile de evaluare, i anume formalitate (de exemplu, o evaluare periodic oficial fa de ad-hoc comentariu informal), frecvena (de exemplu, anual, semi-anual, trimestrial), precum i surse de evaluare (de exemplu, colegi, subalterni, supervizor clienti) s-au bazat pe Cranet sondaj (Brewster i Hegewisch, 1994), Latham i Napier (1989), precum i McEvoy i Cascio (1990). Rspunsurile la aceste elemente au fost valori binare (adic 1 pentru da si 0 pentru nu). Am masurat, de asemenea, msura n care angajaii particip la procesul de evaluare folosind o scar de 5-Likert variind de la nu sunt de acord puternic (1) s fie de acord puternic (5). Articole au fost luate de la Dipboye i Pontbriand de (1981) i Vance et al. (1992). Cele mai inclus, "supraveghetorul meu funcioneaz foarte bine cu mine pentru a stabili obiectivele de performan / de rating", "Sunt pe deplin implicat n deciziile referitoare la munca mea", "supraveghetorul meu rar cereri sau accept idei, sugestii, sau feedback-ul de la mine" (invers marcate ), i "eu am voie s-i exprime opiniile n mod liber n mi evaluri de evaluare") (alfa = 0,87). ntrebri pentru ncrederea inclus "Am ncredere n eful meu s-mi dea de rating n performan destul de "," supraveghetorul meu este cinstit n a da feedback-ul meu de performan "," m pot baza pe oamenii care m-au supravegheaz ", i" m simt liber s discute probleme de lucru cu seful meu direct, fr teama de a avea a folosit mpotriva mea "( alfa = 0,83). Articole au fost luate de la Earley (1986), Scott (1980) i Korsgaard i Roberson (1995) i au fost msurate utiliznd o scal Likert cu 5 variind de la nu sunt de acord puternic (1) s fie de acord puternic (5). Appraising Performance across Borders 1375 attention were not considered here. An attempt to cover all dimensions of culture is also beyond the scope of any one study. Thus, as previous cross-cultural studies have alerted us, the selected dimensions influence the purposes and practices of appraisal (e.g. sources of feedback, communication or style used

to deliver the appraisal, decision making), capture substantial variations in appraisal across different cultures, and enable us to obtain sufficient theoretical and empirical support for the development of the above hypotheses (e.g. Aycan, 2003; Milliman et al., 1998; Snape et al., 1998; Walker and Dimmock, 2000). Next, we needed to ensure that the countries selected were appropriate for hypotheses testing. Reflecting on the fact that European and Asian human resource practices are held to differ from those in North America, we drew on the guidance offered by earlier work as well as that on cultural clusters to select countries for sampling (Bowen et al., 2002; House et al., 2004; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985).[1] The expectation is that management practices can be transferred between countries within the same cluster (e.g.Anglo, Confucian Asia, Nordic Europe). Since House et al.s (2004) work provided not only an up-todate reflection of how countries differ across the dimensions but is also based on sound conceptual, methodological, and empirical foundations, we used their country groupings and scores as proxies similar to other international management studies (e.g. Chow, 2002; Myloni et al., 2004). Our initial selection included countries that elicit both similarities and differences across the hypothesized dimensions. Certain countries (e.g. Finland and Sweden; USA, Canada, and UK; HK and Singapore) were selected because they shared cultural similarities (Nordic Europe, Anglo, and Confucian Asia), while others (e.g. Finland versus HK) were selected because they elicit greater cultural distance (see Table I). According to Van de Vijver and Leung (1997), by testing cultures that elicit similarities, we can ascertain the predictive capability of cultural constructs in relation to different facets of performance appraisal. If variance exists between similar cultures, then this has implications for the predictive capability of the relevant cultural dimension. It also points to the possible influence of other divergent forces. Conversely, by testing a pool of different cultures, we can explore whether any universality or common themes emerge. Finally, we considered the selection of our sample population. To more readily isolate the effects of culture, we limited the study to a single industry, the banking industry. Limiting the study to a single industry has several benefits. For example, it aids with comparability and since bank functions are relatively homogeneous, differences in performance appraisal can be more readily detected than would be the case in a multiindustry study (Hofstede, 2001; Sparrow, 1996). Choosing a single industry also partially controls for the possible influence of a range of other confounding variables, such as job nature. Our rationale for selecting bank employees also included the highly international nature of the industry, the influence it wields on the economies of the countries selected, and the noteworthy restructuring and change that it has undergone over the past decade. Moreover, human capital remains one of the few routes to achieving and sustaining

competitive advantage (Wright et al., 2001). Given their labour intensity, a performance system that enables a bank to evaluate and reward behaviour that supports the achievement of performance priorities is therefore crucial to its success. With the sample population determined, further refinements to country selection were made by examining the comparability of bank employment levels and size, banking regulation and legislation, economic conditions, and the state of appraisal.[2] In some countries, appraisal was unexpectedly absent (e.g. China) or in a nascent stage (e.g. Japan), constraining the possibility of obtaining a representative sample. Interestingly, although Japan has had a fairly mature management and organizational structure for decades, performance-oriented employee assessment and compensation systems or Seikashugi (which includes performance appraisal) were ad-hoc, in limited use, or exclusive to only certain levels of the hierarchy (Japan Institute for Labour Policy andTraining, 2004). The procedure ultimately yielded a seven country sample spanning three cultural clusters Anglo (Canada, the UK, and the USA), Confucian Asia (Hong Kong and Singapore), and Nordic Europe (Finland and Sweden)[3] (House et al., 2004). SurveyMeasures. An extensive review of the appraisal literature identified measures for the quantitative phase of the study. The applicability and comprehensiveness of measures adopted were then verified in the field with human resources specialists. This was an important step in our protocol as researchers typically do not ask practitioners what they regard as the most important facets of appraisal, thereby limiting the impact of the research on practice (Arvey and Murphy, 1998). Appraisal policies and other pertinent documentation were also inspected in participating organizations. Prior to its distribution, the survey was pre-tested with five human resources professionals from each country. Pilot tests were also undertaken with approximately 20 bank employees in each country. Given the variety of technical terms used, multiple terminologies and a glossary of terms were included in the questionnaire. Forward and backward language translation was also used to ensure equivalent meaning (e.g. HK, Finland, and Sweden). A website acted as an additional reference source for participants. 1376 F. F. T. Chiang and T. A. Birtch 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies The above steps were primarily undertaken to improve construct validity, ensure comparability across the sample, foster accurate and reliable responses, ensure equivalence, refine the survey instrument, and minimize potential response bias. Survey questions were grouped into two main categories, namely purposes and practices of appraisal. Items for purposes were extracted from widely used and empirically validated sources (McEvoy and Cascio, 1990; Milliman et al., 1995). Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which their organizations performance appraisal was used for (1) assessing past performance; (2) determining annual salary increases; (3) making promotion decisions; (4) differentiating performance; (5) clarifying

performance objectives; (6) identifying individual strengths and weaknesses; (7) providing feedback; and (8) assessing training and developmental needs. Principal component factor analysis, using varimax rotation, was performed on the responses. Items that had loadings of less than 0.40 were removed from subsequent analyses. The solution yielded two factors, evaluation and communication-development, that accounted for 69 per cent of total variance. The reliability coefficient estimates (Cronbachs alpha) for the factors were 0.76 and 0.83, respectively. Items relating to appraisal practices, i.e. formality (e.g. a periodic formal appraisal versus ad hoc informal review), frequency (e.g. annual, semi-annual, quarterly), and sources of rating (e.g. supervisor, peer, subordinates, customers) were based on the Cranet survey (Brewster and Hegewisch, 1994), Latham and Napier (1989), and McEvoy and Cascio (1990). Responses for these items were binary values (i.e. 1 for yes and 0 for no). We also measured the extent to which employees participate in the appraisal process using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Items were taken from Dipboye and de Pontbriand (1981) and Vance et al. (1992). Questions included, My supervisor works well with me to set performance objectives/ratings, I am fully involved in decisions related to my work, My supervisor seldom requests or accepts ideas, suggestions, or feedback from me (reverse scored), and I am allowed to express my views freely in appraisal reviews) (alpha = 0.87). Questions for trust included I trust my supervisor in giving me performance rating fairly, My supervisor is honest in giving my performance feedback, I can rely on the people who supervise me, and I feel free to discuss work problems with my immediate supervisor without fear of having it used against me (alpha = 0.83). Items were taken from Earley (1986), Scott (1980) and Korsgaard and Roberson (1995) and were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).