EVALUATION

media type="file" key="10 Route 66.wma" align="center" width="300" height="45"

One day, while traveling in Italy, I stopped in a jewelry store. The antique bracelet was exquisitely detailed and I inquired as to the price. When the store clerk told me “un millione lire”, I thanked her and exited. I was shocked to be followed down the street by this irate storeowner who had been insulted by my lack of bargaining. I have no idea what she said, but the hand gestures were universal.

Imagine doing performance appraisals for a multi-cultural team. In the U.S., we consider evaluation to be one leg of the three legged leadership development stool along with challenge and support. We expect to be evaluated. We are thrilled with the cold, hard data that “proves” the job we are doing and we would also expect to hear the negatives or improvements we need to make. Imagine the surprise when those from other cultures are not impressed with the data and may be insulted. Not all cultures perceive evaluation in a public forum to be a positive. In order to understand rewards in the context of multi-cultural teams, we will first look at the research on reward structures for teams in general.

REWARD STRUCTURES FOR TEAMS
= = In Homan’s Equity or Merit theory of distributing rewards, those who contribute the most are rewarded the most (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The team member who contributes the greatest amount to the success of the team receives the greatest reward. Its detractors argue that it creates unnecessary competition among team members rather than collaboration. Team members may act subversively to hinder others on the team in order to gain the greatest personal reward. An Equality Theory of Distributive Justice distributes rewards to all team members equally. By distributing rewards equally among team members, a mutual esteem is created, mutual respect among members is increased and group loyalty is fostered. It is argued that the downside is that social loafing may be fostered. The Distribution of Benefits According To Need model distributes rewards according to the circumstances of the individual. Someone who has had a recent loss may not be required to do as much work during their time of grieving. According to research, the Equity Theory Of Distributing Rewards is favored at the outset of a task. After a group has worked together and the task is completed, research shows that the Equality Theory Of Distributive Justice is preferred (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Since the research was performed in the U.S., the issue of cultural bias is raised. What is preferred by one culture may not be preferred by another due to an entirely different set of values and beliefs (Hoppe, 1998). The only indisputable fact from the research is that the team needs to believe that the rewards are fair (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Determining what is fair can be a very tall order when cultures with different ways of being come together.

Evaluation Through The Lens Of Culture
= = Rewarding the ability to do the job is at the foundation of evaluation. But what goes into the pot when defining ability? In an Ascription culture, age may be rewarded. In a collectivist culture interpersonal skills may be at the top of the list (Thomas, 2004). If a team collaborates on a project, some will have more skill, some will work longer hours and some will work harder. Thomas (2004) suggests that reward allocation balances equality against equity. To reward the team equitably, the rewards are distributed in regards to effort, time and responsibility. An equal allocation of rewards will reward all participants equally just for contributing. Individualist cultures favor equitable solutions while collectivist cultures favor equal ones. Collectivists are also more likely to take into account need as a criterion for reward allocation. Imagine that your team consists of a hard worker, a well-connected powerful person and a woman who just lost her husband and has five children to care for. How do you distribute a bonus? Would you make the decision based upon equality, equity or need? Questions like this one are at the heart of multicultural team evaluations (Thomas, 2004).

There are many aspects of culture that should be taken into consideration when choosing a method of evaluation. Hoppe suggests that the dimension of Specific versus Diffuse is the greatest concern (1998). A Specific culture compartmentalizes roles in life. One is not expected to know everything about a topic and expressing this is not a negative. Constructive criticism is expected because the environment is somewhat impersonal. Management By Objective and Pay For Performance works well in this environment. The characteristics of a Specific culture pair well with an Achievement culture. A person is evaluated and rewarded on their recent accomplishments without the context being taken into consideration. The supervisor does not take credit for what the individual achieves. Individualistic cultures encourage a Pay For Performance and an MBO environment. People from an Individualistic culture expect to be promoted on their own merits. They are intrinsically motivated to reach their performance objectives. They also take responsibility for their own mistakes and expect to be punished individually (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998).



In a Diffuse culture, Pay For Performance and MBO severs relationships by not honoring the bond between people. In this personal environment, a person can lose face by a performance review where suggestions are made for improvement. Since relationships intertwine between work and all aspects of life, the criticism is seen to affect the entire person and not to be compartmentalized to the specific job or task. An Ascription culture’s response to evaluation pairs with the Diffuse culture. Because of being honored through status, evaluation may embarrass the person who might perceive it as a threat to their status. In addition, the person is less inclined to admit what they do not know in public because it would bring their status into question. When promotions and rewards are given, the entire context of the person is taken into account. It is fair to give the promotion to the most senior person or to the boss’s nephew. These cultural views pair well with a Communitarianism cultural view. A Pay For Performance in this culture may create worse job performance in the months ahead as the signaled out team member tries to level the rewards between his team members. When mistakes are made, the individual is not signaled out because the shame is in the team picking up the weight (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998).

​
The U.S. depends upon “objective” measurement for leadership development. Quantification and measurement of behavior are seen as the ultimate in fairness in the work environment. However, assessment is problematic across cultures. Other cultures, like France and Germany, rely heavily upon theory. Data, without its supporting theory, is seen as incomplete. In Japanese and Chinese cultures, metaphorical thinking is prized as it takes into account the contexts in which we live (Hoppe, 1998).

**1. Lack of Acceptance of Assessment Data**
It is necessary to have trust in order to believe the evaluation is valid. In cultures with a history of violations, this will not be the case. Confidences may have been breached or a confrontational relationship exists. This can happen in any culture. But some cultural frames can create an ambiguity to data. If the culture is relationship based, then the data gathered by an assessment instrument may be seen as redundant because the important information has already been gathered through interactions (Hoppe, 1998).

2. Cultural Bias in the Assessment Instrument
Can an assessment that has been generated by one culture be used in another? In this case, the assessment’s generalizability needs to be looked at. Culture forms the thinking, beliefs and values of a group of people. Therefore, all aspects of leadership will be culture specific. What makes a good leader, team player or employee will differ cross-culturally (Hoppe, 1998).

3. Cultural Assumptions About The Assessment Process
Who owns the data? In an Individualistic culture it is standard that the individual owns the data. In a Collectivist culture the data is seen as belonging to the group. Since the success or failure of the individual depends upon the group, the data reflects the success or failure of the team. In Ascription cultures, bosses may feel it is their duty to know everything about their employees and feel an obligation to peruse the data (Hoppe, 1998).

= =

4. Cultural Sensitivity In Interpreting Results
There are response patterns that occur consistently through various cultures. In some cultures, the extreme ends of the scales are avoided (Japan and China) while in other cultures (Hispanic) the extremes are always used. In the U.S., team members rate themselves higher than their peers rate them. Awareness of this fact is important when comparing evaluation information in a multi-cultural team. A 360-degree instrument would be particularly susceptible to differences in response patterns (Hoppe, 1998).

Suggestions For Successful Evaluations
1. Set team norms that are appropriate for all on the team. 2. Know the cultural assumptions, values and beliefs that inform your practice and that of the others cultures. 3. Keep in mind the U.S. preference for data and feedback 4. If using assessments, identify cross-culturally validated scales and adjust according to needs. 5. Discuss instrument details with recipient 6. Become aware of preferences for feedback 7. If using an assessment, be clear on who owns the data 8. If using an assessment, check for cultural response patterns. (Hoppe, 1998)

media type="custom" key="5743021" align="center"