Two-country study of engagement, supervisors and performance appraisal

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-07-2015-0105
Date07 August 2017
Pages342-362
Published date07 August 2017
AuthorElaine Farndale
Subject MatterStrategy,International business
Two-country study of engagement,
supervisors and performance appraisal
Elaine Farndale
Elaine Farndale is based
at the School of Labor
and Employment
Relations, Pennsylvania
State University,
University Park, PA, USA
and HR Studies
Department, Tilburg
University, Tilburg, The
Netherlands.
Abstract
Purpose Multinational enterprises are increasingly interested in improving employee engagement
across diverse geographies, signifying the importance of understanding antecedents of engagement
across different national business systems. This study aims to explore the relationship between an
important job resource, perceived performance appraisal fairness and employee engagement in two
countries: the UK and India. Critically, the mediating role of perceived supervisor support in these
contrasting cultural contexts is investigated, as well as differentiating between two types of
engagement: work and organization.
Design/methodology/approach Drawing on a UK-based multinational enterprise operating in its
home country and in India, survey data from 249 employees are analyzed.
Findings The survey results indicate that there are positive relationships between elements of
perceived performance appraisal fairness and engagement in both countries, and that supervisor
support plays an important mediating role. There are, however, important differences between the two
countries’ results.
Research limitations/implications Cross-sectional data from a single firm are a limitation of this
study, as well as using national culture as an explanatory variable although this is not measured. Future
research should attempt to measure culture, especially in India, where cultural heterogeneity is high.
Practical implications The study demonstrates the importance of ensuring appropriate
mechanisms in different overseas operations to achieve engagement when implementing performance
appraisal.
Originality/value This study expands significantly our knowledge surrounding the engagement
construct by including both work and organization engagement, measured simultaneously in two
contrasting national contexts. Furthermore, it highlights the value of national business systems cultural
theorizing to explain differences in employee workplace experiences.
Keywords Comparative analysis, National culture, Human resource management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Multinational enterprises (MNEs) account for a significant proportion of world trade and are
globalizing the world of work. Their operations span multiple national business systems
(Whitley, 1999), incorporating multiple institutional and cultural contexts. To theorize how
the national business systems of an MNE’s home country and of its subsidiaries might
affect a firm’s operations, this study adopts a cultural lens. National culture is a significant
element of a country’s national business system, highlighting many differences between
western and Asian countries (Aycan et al., 2000;Brookes et al., 2011;Peretz and Fried,
2012).
As MNEs strive continually to improve performance, employee engagement programs have
moved centre-stage (Harter et al., 2002;Rich et al., 2010;Vance, 2006). To date,
engagement has been associated with such positive outcomes as commitment, intention to
quit, organizational citizenship behavior, burnout, innovative work behavior, employee
well-being and readiness to change (for an overview, see: Farndale and Vidovi´
c, 2016).
Received 22 July 2015
Revised 22 December 2015
Accepted 25 January 2016
This study was part of a
research project funded by
the Society for Human
Resource Management
Foundation in the USA.
PAGE 342 JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES VOL. 11 NO. 3, 2017, pp. 342-362, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1558-7894 DOI 10.1108/JABS-07-2015-0105
Complementing these constructs, engagement is an important area of study, as it has been
identified as beneficial, both for organizations and often for individual employees
themselves (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008), and is able to tap into both attitudinal and
behavioral outcomes at the individual employee level. Yet, from a research perspective, the
antecedents of employee engagement, particularly when operating across diverse national
business systems, remain under-explored (Brough et al., 2013;Wollard and Shuck, 2011).
This is a significant omission, potentially inhibiting MNEs from developing their human
capital competitive advantage due to a lack of understanding of how engagement might be
created and enhanced across national business systems.
Employee engagement refers to attentiveness to role performance in a job and as an
organization member (Saks, 2006). At the work level, it is defined as the level of vigor,
dedication and absorption employees show in their job (Schaufeli et al., 2006). At the
organization level, it includes positive employee attitudes toward the organization and its
values (Robinson et al., 2004). A primary model that explains the antecedents of
engagement is the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007),
highlighting how job resources help achieve work goals or reduce job demands. Receiving
performance feedback and having opportunity to participate in decision-making are typical
examples of job resources (Karasek, 1979;Spector, 1986), alongside other factors such as
financial reward, positive team climate and social support from colleagues (Farndale and
Murrer, 2015).
To understand how employee engagement is engendered in organizations, the focus here
is on exploring processes that include both receiving feedback and having the opportunity
to be heard in the organization. The performance appraisal (PA) event is just such an
occasion, and therefore, perceptions of PA may represent very relevant job resources for
employees. Furthermore, PA has been found to have a positive association with
engagement (Mone et al., 2011;Robinson et al., 2004).
How the employee actually perceives the PA process (not necessarily the same as how the
practice is intended by the firm: Nishii and Wright, 2008) is critical. For example, perceived
unfairness in the PA process can limit its effectiveness (Murphy and Cleveland, 1991) and
can lead to diminished employee attitudes and performance (Latham and Mann, 2006).
Employees who do not feel as though they have been treated fairly in the workplace are
more likely to reduce their performance, commitment and organizational citizenship
behavior (Colquitt et al., 2001). The role of the supervisor is important here, firstly, in his or
her role as the implementer of the PA process and secondly, in the more general role as a
line manager influencing the overall employee-supervisor relationship (perceived
supervisor support: PSS). As Saks (2006) found, if employees perceive that their supervisor
supports them, they are more likely to show engagement.
There is, however, a complicating factor to this line of argumentation: these relationships
have predominantly been established in western research. How PA is perceived has been
shown to be subject to various cross-national challenges, including problems of
transparency and communication (due particularly to language differences) when
implemented across national borders (Briscoe and Claus, 2008). Specifically, extant
studies highlight differences in approach to PA systems between western and non-western
contexts (Björkman and Budhwar, 2007). Cross-national research focusing on national
business systems has shown that HRM practices in general are largely country-specific
(Aycan et al., 2007,1999), in part at least because different cultures vary in their perception
of what is fair and how supervisors should support their employees (Hofstede, 1980;House
et al., 2004;Jackson, 2002;Snape et al., 1998).
The study presented here investigates two contrasting national contexts simultaneously,
analyzing data from an MNE’s operations headquartered in the UK with subsidiaries
operating in India. The context-specific effects of these two examples of western versus
VOL. 11 NO. 3 2017 JOURNAL OF ASIA BUSINESS STUDIES PAGE 343

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT