Attitudes towards different sources of executive appraisal: a comparison of Hong Kong Chinese and American managers in Hong Kong

Abstract

This study examines the attitudes of three groups of managers in Hong Kong, namely, Hong Kong Chinese managers in local Chinese firms (HK/HK), Hong Kong Chinese managers in US firms (HK/US) and American managers in US firms (US/US), towards supervisory, peer, subordinate and multi-source appraisal of executive performance. The more recent perspective of crossvergence, within the convergence-divergence debate, provides the theoretical foundation for formulating the hypotheses. The findings indicate support for this new perspective of crossvergence. There is also evidence of the coexistence of all the three perspectives of convergence, divergence and crossvergence. The study found that the practice of supervisory appraisal is supported more by HK/US and US/US managers than by HK/HK managers. Furthermore, both HK/US and US/US managers are more supportive of subordinate evaluation than peer evaluation. Overall, the findings indicate that the traditional Chinese values may be more congruent with the notion of supervisory appraisal than with peer and subordinate evaluation. The study thus points out the importance of the compatibility of norms and beliefs regarding a management practice such as performance appraisal with the local national cultures in determining the acceptance and hence the transferability of that practice across countries.