Compare and contrast Hofstede's cultural dimensions of Australia and China.

Performance appraisal is a method which is increasingly used to evaluate employees to determine the degree to which they are performing effectively and encourage them to direct their energies towards organizational performance. Although the appraisal is being practiced, there are criticisms made against the system which generally arise from within the Orthodox and radical management frame work.

It is hypothesized that cultural differences in behaviour will mean differences in HRM practices within different cultures but those within the same cultural cluster will be similar whereas those in different clusters will be dissimilar. Employees and managers from different cultures take decisions in different ways – the processes, behaviours and values are not the same. People have different value orientations as a result of individual psychology, life-stage and generation and assumptions about behaviour determined by cultures are linked to a variety of organisational behaviours.

Looking at the chart the first dimension of culture plotted is individualism-collectivism. This dimension addresses how people define themselves and their relationships with others. Cultures that fall on the individualism side of the continuum share four characteristics. First, such cultures consider the individual to be the most important entity in any social setting. Second, individualistic cultures stress independence rather than dependence. Third, individualistic cultures reward individual achievement. The last characteristic is; individualistic cultures value each individual’s uniqueness.

In most cultures, behavior can be placed on a continuum, so that not all individuals are stereotypical. Chinese mangers place more value on keeping harmony within a workgroup. Managers influence the need for co-operation and group welfare, further affect work relationships, leading to a managing philosophy based on loyalty, and collectivism. These attributes joined with a strong correlation among age and seniority and status, can translate into legitimate authority and power. The culture this creates, relies on benevolent styles of communicating with middle managers and down the line.

Cross Cultural management explains the behaviour of people in organizations worldwide, helping managers and firms to understand how to act in business matters dealing with the different cultures. (Adler, 2008)

Dr. Hofstede performed a comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture. In the 1970’s, as a Dutch researcher Dr. Geert Hofstede, collected and analyzed data from 116,000 surveys taken from IBM employees in forty different countries around the world. From those results, Hofstede developed a model that identifies four primary dimensions of differentiate cultures. These include: Uncertainty Avoidance (UA), Masculinity-Femininity (MAS), Individualism-Collectivism (IND), Power and Distance (PD). After a further study of the Asian culture by researcher Michael Bond in 1991, Hofstede added a fifth dimension in his theory, Long- and Short-term time orientation (LTO), also referred to as the Confucian Dynamism. His research has framed how cultural differences can be used in professional business transactions. Geert Hofstede 's dimensions analysis can assist the business person in better understanding the intercultural differences within regions and between countries.

Performance Management Within the Workplace The basis of the mainstream of performance appraisals within the modern workplace is one person (a manager or executive) rating one more, an intrinsically individual process. There are distinction such as 360 degree appraisals that include the judgment of others such as clientele and peers/colleagues in the process but it is the action of one person transitory judgment upon another that is subjective in nature and the root cause of many of the problems encountered in the research associated with performance appraisals. Performance appraisals are of importance to the organisation, as they often provide the only measure of an individual's contribution and

With the unstoppable trend of globalisation, it becomes extremely significant for international businesses to have a thorough understanding of different cultures. Hofstede (1980, pp. 21-23) defines culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from another’. This essay examines Hofstede’s cultural framework and suggests that Hofstede’s cultural framework is an outstanding and authoritative tool to analyze culture differences. In this essay, cultural frameworks will be discussed firstly, following by a discussion of my cultural scores and background. Finally, recommendations on cross-cultural management between China and Australia will be provided.

“Performance appraisals can enhance employee performance as well as advance the mission and goals of an organization. There are many advantages of performance appraisals if they are applied fairly, consistently and objectively. Performance appraisals not applied fairly can be counterproductive and even destructive to

As today’s businesses continue to expand, workers are expected to perform well on their jobs. This is what truly happened to management who has a tendency to measure how well they are doing on their job. The job done in a certain period of time is frequently evaluated by performance appraisal. Performance appraisals lead to enhancing employee’s performance, internal communication (relationship), and quality improvements as well. Some experts argue that formal performance appraisal is somewhat useless and many of them contemplate performance appraisals can be detrimental to quality improvement and convey some negative perceptions to the management (David Law, 2007). Albeit many professionals pointed out disadvantages associated

| * India scores high on this dimension, 77, indicating an appreciation for hierarchy and a Top – Down Structure in society and Organizations. dependent on the boss or the powerholder for direction, acceptance of un-equal rights between the power-priviledged and those who are lesser down in the pecking order, immediate superiors accessible but one layer above less so, paternalistic leader, management directs, gives reason / meaning to ones work life and rewards in exchange for loyalty from employees. * Real Power is centralized even though it may not appear to be and managers count on the obedience of their team members. * Employees expect to be directed clearly as to their functions and what is expected of them. * Communication is top down and directive in its style and often feedback which is negative is never offered up the ladder

The United States and China boast the two largest economies in the world but, despite this fact, these two countries have very little in common. At first glance, this may seem very obvious to most people but, what exactly is it that makes these two countries so different? How is it that such different perspectives and approaches can both lead to great success? Hofstede’s six dimensions of culture are an attempt to answer these questions and more. Dr. Geert Hofstede, studied employees of the computer firm IBM in over fifty different countries. When he examined his findings he found “clear patterns of similarity and difference along the four dimensions” (Manktelow, Jackson Edwards, Eyre, Cook and Khan, n.d.). The fact that he focused his research on solely IBM employees allowed him to eliminate company culture as a differentiating factor and “attribute those patterns to national and social differences” (n.d.). He used his findings to originally identify four dimensions, later expanded to six, that could “distinguish one culture from another” (n.d.). The six dimensions all on a scale from 0 to 100 are:

Managers were concerned about knowing and understanding each and every perspective of their employee’s cultures. As they know that without studying or knowing the culture, coordination cannot be built between the employees. It is the existing perspective of managers dealing with cross-cultural management (Sultana, 2013).

Performance appraisals, popularized during the Industrial Revolution, are conducted widely throughout the business world (Williams, 2014). This process evaluates the performance of an employee in their respective positions (Lussier & Hendon, n.d.)- it provides feedback on how well they have done and where they have fallen short, in addition to setting performance goals for the upcoming assessment period. There are many benefits to annual performance appraisals to include identifying training needs/opportunities, charting an employee’s progress in goal attainment, relationship building between managers and employees and motivating employees to excel in their duties and obligations (Webb, n.d.). Despite their widespread usage, some opponents believe that annual performance appraisals are antiquated and no longer effective in today’s fast-paced business world (Scullen, 2011). This paper sets out to review and discuss the opinions of one such opponent as well as discuss my theory on annual performance appraisals.

In the organizational structure the performance appraisal of the employees is an important and key factor for the success of the organization. It is a practice which is established for the assessment of the employees performance and findings ways to improve the performance. The mehtod of performance appraisal has am impact on the pay of individuals, and other organizational success. This process is also designed to deal with problem behavior. The process of performance appraisal is the best way to improve the performance of organization because with the help of this process the employees know their weak points and try to overcome those to improve the organizational efficiency (Rasch, 2010)