Contextualizing performance appraisal practices in

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ISSN: 0958-5192 (Print) 1466-4399 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Contextualizing performance appraisal practices in Chinese public sector organizations: the importance of context and areas for future study Meng Wang, Cherrie Jiuhua Zhu, Susan Mayson & Weizhen Chen To cite this article: Meng Wang, Cherrie Jiuhua Zhu, Susan Mayson & Weizhen Chen (2017): Contextualizing performance appraisal practices in Chinese public sector organizations: the importance of context and areas for future study, The International Journal of Human Resource Management To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1292537

Published online: 20 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijh20 Download by: [Sichuan University]

Date: 20 February 2017, At: 18:06

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1292537

Contextualizing performance appraisal practices in Chinese public sector organizations: the importance of context and areas for future study Meng Wanga, Cherrie Jiuhua Zhub, Susan Maysonb and Weizhen Chena a

Department of Strategy and Human Resource Management, Business School of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China; bDepartment of Management, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT

Public sector organizations (PSOs) continue to undergo pressures for change due to economic globalization and the changing role of the state, resulting in increased focus on performance management, particularly employee performance appraisal. New public management’s emphasis on transparency, accountability, efficiency and performance highlights the multiple and often conflicting roles and performance outcomes of PSOs, the social and economic contexts in which PSOs operate, and the multiple ways they measure and manage performance. Responding to this special issue and calls for a richer understanding of performance management in PSOs we examine the impact of context on performance appraisal in Chinese PSOs. As China continues its transitions to a market-driven economy, Chinese PSOs have engaged in managerial reforms to improve governance, efficiency and productivity, including the strategic implementation of western-based HRM practices to manage employee performance. Our analysis demonstrates the challenges context poses for analysing HRM practices in Chinese PSOs.

KEYWORDS

Performance management; performance appraisal; social context; publicsector organizations; strategic human resource management; China

Introduction The changing role of the state and economic globalization have compelled public sector organizations (PSOs) to focus on transparency, accountability and efficiency to improve their performance outcomes and processes (Bouckaert & Halligan, 2006; O’Toole & Meier, 2015), particularly in the area of employee performance (West & Blackman, 2015). New public management and its concern with management improvements highlight the multiple and conflicting roles and outcomes demanded of PSOs (Bevir, Rhodes, & Weller, 2003), particularly the multiple ways in which PSOs measure and manage performance (Gao, 2015; Hu & Dong, 2013). CONTACT Susan Mayson

[email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2

M. WANG ET AL.

Cross-national comparisons of performance management in PSOs point to the influence of context on performance implementation and outcomes and call for more research on the impact of salient contextual factors on performance management (Brandsen & Kim, 2010; Gao, 2015). Importantly this research challenges claims about the convergence of practices across different contexts (Dollery & Lee, 2004) and argues that ‘even when reforms are similar with respect to the administrative measures that are implemented [across nations], they can have significantly different political and cultural meanings depending on the broader state-society relations within which they are embedded’ (Brandsen & Kim, 2010, p. 367). This is the starting point for this paper. While many studies have explored various aspects of performance management in PSOs, such as finding objective measures (Schachter, 2010), comparisons between performance management in private versus PSOs (Hvidman & Andersen, 2014), and links to performance outcomes (Poister, Pasha, & Edwards, 2013), we examine the impact of national-level contextual factors on performance management in PSOs (Brandsen & Kim, 2010; Gao, 2015). However, while comparative studies are useful (e.g. Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2015), there are few studies that examine employee performance appraisal practices within specific contexts. Exceptions include Snape, Thompson, Yan, and Redman (1998) who explore performance appraisal practices in Hong Kong, and West and Blackman (2015) who explore performance management systems in Australia. In this paper, we use China as a case context and a Chinese PSO as a case study to illustrate how specific political, cultural and institutional factors impact employee performance appraisal practices and outcomes. Chinese PSOs offer a useful research site to explore the impact of context on performance appraisal systems and outcomes because of the political, institutional and cultural context in which they are located. Additionally, PSOs in developing countries such as China are subject to huge demands for change from both central government and the public (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2015; Owusuw, 2012) to adopt managerial reforms to improve governance, efficiency and productivity (Liu, 2015). State introduced performance appraisal systems for civil servants have been used as a key focus for driving performance improvements in Chinese PSOs since the early 1990s (Liu, 2015). Given the political, institutional and cultural context of performance appraisal practices in Chinese PSOs and, following Brandsen and Kim’s (2010) view that meaning and context are linked through employee perception and experience of HRM practices, we focus on performance appraisal. This guides us towards understanding the perceptional and performance reactions to performance appraisal within the broader political, cultural and institutional context of Chinese PSOs (Kim & Wright, 2011; Pichler, 2012). Our contribution in this paper is the focus on context and how and why context matters (Andrews, 2016; Meyer, 2014). We start with a literature review on the

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

3

role of context in performance management in the public sector before discussing employee performance appraisal in Chinese PSOs. We then identify and explore the impact of key contextual factors salient to Chinese PSOs and discuss ways in which they influence performance appraisal practices. To support our arguments we offer a contextualized analysis (Meyer, 2014), by presenting qualitative evidence (drawn from interviews) collected in 2012 and 2013 at one of China’s largest and highest ranking public universities. Performance management in PSOs and contextual influences Many researchers have studied context and its importance in management research (e.g. Child & Marinova, 2014; Tsui, 2007). We agree with Tsui (2007, p. 1357) that ‘deep contextualization is necessary for both theory development and for the meaningful application of existing theory to novel contexts’. Contextualization here means linking observations to a set of relevant facts, actions, events, or ideas, which adds one more level to theorization by accounting for the effect of contextual characteristics on the behaviour of and within organizations (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). This assumes that organizations are open systems and context is a major source of influence, which must not be ignored in developing explanations of organizational practices and outcomes (Tsui, 2007). Most recently, Andrews (2016, p. 764) has also argued that more attention should be paid by scholars ‘to identifying contextual factors’ that influence managerial practices in the public sector. In line with these views, Western researchers have argued for understanding performance management systems against a backdrop of the influence of an array of contextual factors in various national contexts (Kim & Wright, 2011; Snape et al., 1998; Van Helden & Reichard, 2013), and called for research to offer a richer contextual understanding of its processes and outcomes (Gao, 2015). These calls point to insufficient theoretical explanations of the interactive effect of contextual factors on the effectiveness of performance management in PSOs in general (Arnaboldi, Lapsley, & Steccolini, 2015) and HRM strategies (Kim & Wright, 2011), including performance appraisal (Haines & St-Onge, 2012). Recent theorizing highlights how country-specific social, economic and cultural contextual factors impact performance management in PSOs (Hu & Dong, 2013; West & Blackman, 2015). Particularly comparative studies highlighting ways in which context may create different implementation outcomes from apparently similar practices (Brandsen & Kim, 2010; Dollery & Lee, 2004). In summary, scholars from the disciplines of public administration, HRM, and organizational behaviour indicate that national-level contextual factors (e.g. political and culture settings) are most likely to affect performance management in PSOs in general and performance appraisal more specifically by influencing organizational and individual behaviour (Arnaboldi et al., 2015; Van Helden & Reichard, 2013). To explore this more fully we outline factors in Chinese

4

M. WANG ET AL.

political, cultural and institutional contexts and how they might impact performance appraisal practices. Chinese PSOs, the context and its impact on performance appraisal Chinese PSOs include the Communist Party of China (CPC) and governmental organizations (e.g. legislative, judicial, and procuratorial organs), public institutions (e.g. public universities), and state-owned enterprises (Shen, 2012). Despite their diversity, Chinese PSOs share similarities, such as state funding and support; centrally appointed leaders (cadres) (also called the nomenclature system); tall hierarchies; top-down management; paternalistic and communal value systems and lifetime employment (Li, 2013). Chinese PSOs play a crucial role in the state’s economic and social development through administration and service delivery and employ over 35% of the Chinese urban workforce (National Bureau of Statistics China [NBSC], 2014). Like their Western counterparts, Chinese PSOs face calls for improved leadership, accountability, transparency, better service quality and improved performance outcomes (NPC Report, 7th March, 2016). The Chinese Government has made efforts to improve PSO’s accountability and legitimacy (Zhuo, 2011). This includes efforts in 2013 and 2015 to reform employee appraisal systems in universities (CPC Reports, 2013, 2015) to facilitate implementation of performancerelated-pay in 2010. In light of national level interest in improving the effectiveness of performance management, particularly performance appraisal in Chinese PSOs and our interest in country-specific context factors, we echo Kim and Wright’s (2011) concerns that much research on HRM in China provides insufficient theoretical explanations for the impact of context on HRM effectiveness. We explore key contextual factors to understand how and why they affect the implementation and outcomes of performance appraisal practices in Chinese PSOs. We start with political factors and argue for their importance in the Chinese context because of the central role of the Party-state and authoritarian control of the CPC in public sector administration (Liang & Langbein, 2015). We then consider how cultural and institutional factors could impact employees’ perception, behaviours and outcomes of performance appraisal in Chinese PSOs. Political context of Chinese PSOs and its impact on performance appraisal

In China, the Party-state has a central role in how staff are employed and managed in PSOs (Liang & Langbein, 2015). The sovereign right of the CPC to govern cadres (e.g. white-collar staff in PSOs) gives the Party full authority over their selection, appointment, monitoring and evaluation at all levels of PSOs (Li, 2012). This is supported by policy that dictates cadres must be led and managed by the CPC (dang-guan-gan-bu) (Bell, 2015). The Party secretary of each PSO is regarded as


5

the supreme leader within the organizational hierarchy (i.e. yi-ba-shou) (Zhang & Yang, 2007). While the policy aims to solidify the Party’s administration and enhance the CPC’s ruling ability, reliance on the personal power of the leader can have negative effects (Zhang, 2010). This results in what some researchers refer to as the ‘political level decides all’ or ‘blind obedience to the superior’ (Qiu & Li, 2009, p. 4). The Party’s dominance is also reflected in setting politically oriented performance criteria. For example, performance appraisal for cadres/managers prioritizes one’s loyalty to the Party as a moral virtue (de, morality). Other performance standards issued by the central government include, neng (ability), qin (diligence), ji (achievements) and lian (probity/non-corruptible) (Wang, Zhu, Zheng, & Mayson, 2014, p. 166). Shen and Darby (2006) reported that standards such as de (morality) measured as one’s political or moral character, could be interpreted subjectively resulting in subjective performance standards and non-performance-related factors becoming highly relevant to performance. Consistent with this political environment, every PSO has an institutionalized structure to accommodate management of cadres. The Organization Department (i.e. zu-zhi-bu), within Chinese PSOs, has an enormous amount of control over cadres (e.g. selecting, appointing and promoting cadres), especially Party members (Chow, 1988). Hence, while PSOs are managed through functional departments, the Organization Department through its appointment, assessment and promotion activities may cause administrative departments to act like executive agents of the CPC (Yuan, 2007; Zhou, 2009). This politically aligned, institutional arrangement has led to a management model characterized by a mixture of Party and non-Party affairs, which often results in interference by the Party in administrative activities including performance appraisal (Wang, 2009). It also creates a system that fails to distinguish between policy-makers whose jobs relate to developing organizational policies, strategy and goals, and operational professionals whose jobs relate to policy implementation via day-to-day administration and compliance activities. The two groups are held accountable to one set of broad performance standards that frequently fail to reflect their actual work performance (Jiang, 2005). Further, the long-standing nomenclatura (nomenklatura) institution in China originating from the former Soviet Union (Manion, 1984) is a product of the Chinese political environment. Regarded as critical by staff working in PSOs, the system revolves around top-down, hierarchical assignment of tasks and missions to lower level staff, and where career advancement is reliant on bureaucratic power and authority (Liang & Langbein, 2015; Whiting, 2004). Consequently, the high concentration of power in the CPC and its Organization Department from the central to local levels form a political context through which cadres/staff make sense of and draw meaning from the performance appraisal system to which they are subject (Brandsen & Kim, 2010). This may lead to appraisal behaviours where staff may act to further their personal or political connections. For example,

6

M. WANG ET AL.

some cadres may appraise their subordinates based on their subjective impression of their political value or connection to them rather than actual work performance (Jiang, 2005). Similarly, the political context may encourage staff to engage in behaviours to please performance managers (e.g. through offering bribes or impression management) to advance their careers (Li, 2012). Cultural context of Chinese PSOs and its impact on performance evaluation

Yang (2012, p. 167) explains that ‘it is generally agreed that managerial philosophy and practice can be understood as a function of cultural factors’ as culture has a direct impact on the behaviour of organizational members. Although there are debates about privileging cultural over institutional factors in the western HRM literature (Dewettinck & Remue, 2011), or whether culture can be separated from institutional factors (Pudelko, 2006), Den Hartog, Boselie, and Paauwe (2004) assert institutional factors (i.e. norms, values and assumptions) rooted in the institutional context encompass the social, cultural, and legal dimensions of context. Furthermore, studies of cultural influences on managerial philosophies and practices in China, identify competing and merging cultural ideologies such as Confucianism, feudalism, socialism and capitalism that influence organisational and individual behaviour (Li & Sun, 2013; Yang, 2012). Confucianism has a powerful influence on the Chinese civil service because of the respect and social status given to government officials (Hofstede & Bond, 1988; Warner, 2010). Linked to this is the doctrine of the Golden Mean that emphasizes creating and maintaining balance (i.e. zhong-yong) (Warner, 2010) by valuing norms of harmony (he-xie), respect for seniority, authority, and hierarchy as fundamental to social order (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997). Confucian values are reflected in feudalism that remains deeply embedded in Chinese PSOs (Liu, 1991). This is reflected in authoritarian bureaucracy, classes and privileges based on position, consistent with Confucianism and observed in these organizations (Jiang, 2005). In addition rules, important to feudal society, such as ‘rule by man’, acknowledge the high status of those (normally men) who rule by holding official positions (ren-zhi) rather than by law (fa-zhi) (Zhang, 2010). Other Confucian values, such as ren-qing (favoured relationships), respect for authority, mutual obligation to support and enhance social harmony and guanxi (reciprocal social/personal relationships), shape workplace relationships and are important markers of Chinese behavioural norms (Hwang & Hu, 2004). Given the political structure of PSOs, Confucian values along with feudalism may influence the process and outcomes of performance appraisal practices, particularly where staffing regulations are administered from the top-down, making them broad and vague (Farh, Tsui, Xin, & Cheng, 1998; Zhai, 2005). Further, both Confucianism and feudalism value the importance of aspiring to and holding high office (guan-wei). The virtue of pursuing an official career and holding an official/managerial position bestows high social status and power


7

(Liang, Marler, & Cui, 2012). Hence those who work in PSOs (including their families) value guan-wei and the virtue of gaining high public office to garner personal and familial respect, social status, power, and influence (Wang, 2013). Therefore, Confucian and feudal values may influence staff promotion opportunities and the way in which managers and employees make sense of performance appraisal practices (Heberer, Trappel, & Wang, 2012). Socialism as a political and social ideology similarly affects management philosophy and practices (Hu, 2013). In 2006, the CPC set out a ‘socialist core value system’ consisting of Marxism, socialism with Chinese characteristics, patriotism, the spirit of reform and innovation, and the socialist sense of honour and disgrace (Zeng, 2009). These values form the basis of Chinese civil society as proposed by the CPC (Ning, 2013) and consistent with Confucian ideals of maintaining and developing a harmonious society (Zeng, 2009). In considering the impact of the cultural context on performance appraisal in Chinese PSOs, these ideologies would affect the appraisal processes and responses to them, which may impact individual perception, behaviour and performance (London & Smither, 1995). A large amount of empirical evidence demonstrates that these ideologies have, to various extents, influenced the design and implementation of performance appraisal systems in Chinese PSOs (Li & Sun, 2013). For example, de (morality) is often over-emphasized as a key performance criterion because strong morality, together with personal responsibility are important for maintaining social harmony (Yang, 2012). Similarly, feudal values emphasizing rule by elites, de-emphasize the application of rational bureaucratic rules (Liu, 1991) and lead to practices of ren-qing (favoured relationships) and guan-xi (reciprocal social/personal relationships), particularly in performance appraisal processes (Dong & Chen, 2010). Hence strongly held ideological values such as ‘harmony’, ‘social order’, ‘guan-ben-wei’ (which means official worship, i.e. being an official in the organization is a matter of the great importance in one’s life), ‘rule by man’ and ‘guan-xi’ are likely to impact staff cognition, perceptions and subsequent behaviours in response to performance appraisal practices and their outcomes. The institutional context of Chinese PSOs and its impact on performance appraisal

Researchers point to institutional factors that may influence performance appraisal practices (Decramer, Smolders, Vanderstraeten, & Christiaens, 2012) and individual reactions to this practice in Chinese PSOs (Zhang & Lovegrove, 2009). In the Chinese context there is an array of institutional factors relating to age and gender that impact an already subjective system shaped by centrally determined and often poorly specified policies. This creates an absence of specialized, detailed and relevant legislation to regulate performance appraisal in PSOs (e.g. Sun, 2008). For example, gendered institutional arrangements about retirement

8

M. WANG ET AL.

age for public servants at different levels are a noteworthy factor in considering performance appraisal. To be more specific, age and gender are key determinants in the management and retirement of cadres and employees in the public sector (e.g. CPC Reports 1978, 2014). These regulations set age limits for promotion and retirement for cadres, with complex gender specified rules set for employees and cadres at different administrative levels. One example relates to middle-level officials who must relinquish their leadership positions at age 50 (female) and 52 (male). Officials at vice-provincial level must step down at the age of 60 regardless of gender. These policies are complex and their impact on the performance appraisal can be severe as staff may try to subvert or reinterpret the rules in order to maintain their careers or employment longevity. The effects of such institutional complexities on performance appraisal practices lack empirical evidence in the existing literature. To summarize, political, cultural and institutional contextual factors could affect performance appraisal practices in Chinese PSOs. However, there is little empirical evidence to substantiate such a claim. To address this gap, the research question raised for further investigation in this study is: How could context affect the perception, behaviour and outcomes of performance appraisal practices in Chinese PSOs? Research method Given we are interested in a contextualizing performance appraisals in Chinese PSOs, we adopted an exploratory approach to data collection (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009) is necessary to understand how performance appraisal is influenced by contextual factors in Chinese PSOs (Wang, 2013). The choice of a public sector university as the case setting enabled us to ‘investigate an empirical phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (Yin, 2009, p.18). The case university is one of China’s key comprehensive research-oriented universities under the direct supervision of the Chinese Ministry of Education. It consists of over 80 organizational units including administrative departments, faculties (e.g. Science, Engineering, Medicine, Arts and Commerce) and functional business units. The managers interviewed for the study were middle-level managers (chuji ganbu). In the western context, this group are equivalent to Deans and Directors of functional units. In the Chinese context they are officially defined as executives whose administrative rank is between presidential level (e.g. Chancellors and Vice Chancellors) (xiaoji ganbu) and sectional-level managers (e.g. head of department) (keji ganbu). Interviews were conducted with 18 academic-managers at different levels (see Table 1), consisting of Deans, Deputy Deans and Heads of functional units such as Finance and HR Departments. These executives are all involved in university policy-making and implementation and hence judged to have key knowledge and experience to provide insight into the performance appraisal system thereby

Code UniAdm01 UniAdm02 UniAdm03 UniDua01 UniDua02 UniDua03 FacAdm01 FacAdm02

FacAdm03

FacDua01 FacDua02 FacDua03 BU01 BU02 BU03 HRM01 HRM02 HRM03

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

47 40 45 60 46 48 60 47 56

58

Age 58 51 47 44 47 46 45 46

F M M M F M M F M

M

Gender M M M M M M F M

Job position Director Deputy Director Deputy Director Director Deputy Director Deputy Director Party Secretary Deputy Party Secretary Deputy Party Secretary Dean Deputy Dean Deputy Dean Senior Manager Senior Manager Senior Manager Director Deputy Director Deputy Director PhD PhD PhD Bachelor PhD Master Bachelor Master Bachelor

Bachelor

Education Bachelor Bachelor Bachelor PhD PhD PhD Bachelor Bachelor

Faculty Faculty Faculty BU BU BU AD AD AD

Faculty

Function Unit AD AD AD AD AD AD Faculty Faculty

5 5 7 26 12 9 25 24 27

13

Duration in years 13 11 13 5 16 5 5 23

Face-to-face interview Face-to-face interview Telephone interview Face-to-face interview Telephone interview Telephone interview Face-to-face interview Face-to-face interview Face-to-face interview

Telephone interview

Types of interviews Face-to-face interview Telephone interview Telephone interview Face-to-face interview Telephone interview Telephone interview Face-to-face interview Telephone interview

Notes:‘UniAdm’ = Administrative staff whose jobs relate solely to administrative affairs at the university level (e.g. Directors and Deputy Directors of administrative departments); ‘UniDua’ = Administrative staff who take on both administrative and academic roles at the university level (e.g. Directors and Deputy Directors of administrative departments); ‘FacAdm’ = Administrative staff who are responsible for the Communist Party of China affairs at the faculty level (Dangwei Shuji or Dangwei Fushuji); ‘FacDua’ = Administrative staff who take on both administrative and academic roles at the faculty level (e.g. Deans and Deputy Deans of faculties); ‘BU’ = The middle-level managers in the business units of the university; ‘HRM’ = The middle-level managers in the HRM department of the university. ‘AD’ = Administrative departments; ‘BU’ = Business units; ‘M’ = male; ‘F’ = female.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

No

Table 1. Profile of interviewees.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 9

10

M. WANG ET AL.

shedding light on how performance appraisal practices are embedded in complex political, cultural and institutional contexts. Semi-structured interviews and document analysis was used to yield information about performance appraisal-related rules and regulations. In doing this qualitative data were collected in context and methodological triangulation was achieved using analysis of relevant documents to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings (Denzin, 1989). Face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted as detailed in Table 1. The interview questions were open-ended. Each interview was recorded for later transcription. Transcription was undertaken by the first author who is a native Chinese speaker and fluent in English. Data analysis commenced by identifying first level themes to organize the data (Merriam, 1998). Second level content analysis was conducted using a template approach applied across the transcripts (Tharenou, Donohue, & Cooper, 2007) with the relevant data categorized or grouped together. Research Findings During the interviews, participants stated repeatedly that the five-word performance criteria (de, neng, qin, ji and lian) were subjective and vague, and terms like ‘moral character’ and ‘political character’ were used instead of developing any quantified or specific measurement to capture their actual job performance. In specifying this, one interviewee (BU02 – Senior Manager) said: The measures for each criterion are abstract, for example, in assessing de (moral virtue), some measures are defined as political morality(zhengzhi pinzhi) and moral integrity (daode pinxing) relating to their social, professional and families’ issues […] It was hard to quantify the outcomes of these measures. The criteria used is also directing our behaviors towards serving the political goals of the Party and the university first to ensure we are politically right.

Employees with dual academic and management responsibilities such as Deans were assessed by two criteria. First, the employee is held to account for clearly quantified research outcomes (i.e. number and ranking of publications and research funding quantum), and second, the employee is held to account for their management responsibilities as defined by the CPC which as indicated above were often vaguely defined. This problem is expressed by an interviewee with dual responsibilities (UniDua01 – Director): Performance criteria used are too abstract without objective measurements except for the research part. The question regarding how to accurately evaluate the job performance of middle-level managers who take on a dual role as both administrator and academic remains unsolved. Our university requires that middle-level managers must spend four fifths of their working time on administrative management, but they normally spend more time on their academic research or teaching rather than administrative management, as the latter is difficult to be measured.


11

However, it appears that vague appraisal criteria leaves space for managers with dual roles, to reinterpret performance behaviours and outcomes by highlighting reasons for them to continue with the dual role. The following quotes offer insight into interviewees’ concerns relating to their personal and social power, social status and retirement age: In Chinese culture, the administrative position that a person holds stands for the social influence and power of the person. The consciousness of guan-ben-wei (official worship) is still very strong among Chinese people. I think that others in society are more respectful of those who are in administrative positions in our university. When different enterprises or governments come to our university for consultancy or cooperation, they are more willing to cooperate with our professors who perform administrative roles (i.e. hold an official position or guan-wei) as they are more powerful in terms of distributing resources and making decisions … Therefore, many professors want to take on administrative roles in our university. The competition is fairly fierce, because there are a lot of qualified people here. The requirements of our university about selecting and promoting middle-level managers are very high. (UniDua02 – Deputy Director) We feel more stressed in this dual-role position. First, I must do my administrative management job well. However, I do not want to give up my academic research or teaching. In particular, the time period for being middle-level managers in our university is limited (normally for five years or must step down at 50 for females and 52 for males). But as a professor and PhD supervisor I can work longer until the age of 65. I want to go on with my academic research. I do not want to retire when I can still work. I think I will feel more stressed because I want to perform both roles well. (UniDua01: Director)

The quotes demonstrate the impact of institutional factors (CPC retirement rules) and cultural factors relating to status and relationships in how employees make sense of and try to manipulate the performance rules. Here interviewees want to maintain their research roles and work hard to do so, however maintaining their position and status as office bearers is also crucially important. This results in stress and conflict as the two roles are continually negotiated. The impact of cultural factors on performance appraisals is also apparent as indicated by interviewees. Some middle-level managers get bad appraisal results, but often it can be difficult for us to punish them. Why? Many people will intercede for them. Leaders in Ministry of Education or other Ministries called me [to intercede] for these managers. On the other hand, for those managers who should be rewarded may not be rewarded. There are many factors such as guan-xi (reciprocal social/personal relationships) and renqing (personal connections, favour) affecting our management. All these are Chinese cultural characteristics. (HRM01 – Director) I think that guan-ben-wei (official worship) is still prevalent among Chinese people. Many professors who are prestigious in their fields, are willing to take on administrative roles as administrative titles will help them when they seek external funding by cooperating with others outside the university … Given the power and authority attached to the higher positions (guan-wei) and their access to the public resources such as research funding, nobody would like to lose their position. In case one got the

12

M. WANG ET AL.

poor performance evaluation, guan-xi (reciprocal social/personal relationships) established would become critically important. (FacDua03 – Deputy Dean)

These comments are echoed by a Dean who explained: Current appraisal practices are more like the satisfaction evaluation. If a middle-level manager in our university can make subordinates satisfied or keep a good relationship with them, even if this manager has spent more time on academic research rather than administrative management, the manager will not be affected by the appraisal. I feel that sometimes the evaluation results are not relevant to the actual work situation of some middle-level managers in our university. (FacDua01: Dean)

Here we see interviewees’ response to the conflicts that arise from the overlaying of cultural norms on what is meant to be a relatively objective system of performance appraisal. This has been brought about by the impact of the institutional and political context that shapes performance appraisal practices and what they mean to interviewees. As indicated above, the performance appraisal system for middle-level managers is designed and managed by the Organisation Department and implemented by the HR department. The dominant role of CPC in controlling and managing executive-level managers creates a political context that shapes interviewees’ understanding of and behaviour in relation to performance appraisal practices. Moreover, we can see cultural and institutional factors that interweave to shape employee responses to performance appraisal outcomes in Chinese PSOs. The quotes provide a telling insight into how managers perceive and behave in relation to performance appraisal practices. These insights, drawn from middle-level managers in a Chinese public sector university point to the importance of examining performance appraisal practices with attention directed towards key elements of context. In this case, our context-sensitive analysis illustrates the enmeshing of political, institutional and cultural factors that shape employees’ interpretation of and behaviours in response to performance appraisal. Discussion and conclusion This study has addressed the research question exploring the ways that context could affect the perception, behaviour and outcomes of performance appraisal practices in Chinese PSOs. Tsui (2007) argued for the importance of deep contextualization for developing theories and applying theory to new contexts. Our context-sensitive analysis of salient elements of context (political, cultural and institutional factors) captures key aspects of context in a Chinese national university and its effects on performance appraisal. Our context framework, drawn from the literature and a deep understanding of the unique context of our PSO, includes context-specific institutional practices such as the organizational and managerial roles of the CPC in managing cadres. It also highlights the institutional policies that discriminate on the basis of gender and age as well as cultural influences such as the unique mixture of Confucianism, Party politics and feudalism


13

on performance appraisal. Importantly we see the impact of these factors, as enmeshed in cultural norms, institutional practices and politically-driven, topdown HRM practices played out in organizational and personal responses to performance appraisal practices. The data we present can only be understood with reference to context factors, supporting arguments about the impact of extraorganizational factors and intra-organizational forces on employees’ behaviour (see Gould-Williams, 2016). Brandsen and Kim (2010, p. 383) argue that contextualization enriches our interpretations of cross-national variations in public sector reforms, and debunking convergence arguments about public sector reforms across the globe. Furthermore, we note a recent study by Child and Marinova (2014) that is consistent with the approach taken here. In referencing Child and Marinova (2014) we move out of our home field of HRM and public sector management and look to the international business literature. In their study, Child and Marinova (2014) explore context factors that impact Chinese firms’ outward foreign direct investment and how host and home country factors combine to shape the success or otherwise of these activities. While this is not our focus, the authors provide us with two extremely useful concepts, institutional maturity and political stability, that could be applied to future analyses of data that is context-sensitive. Institutional maturity describes the quality and transparency of a country’s legal and other regulatory systems (Child & Marinova, 2014, p. 353). In the case of China where institutions are undergoing radical change as the country modernizes, institutional (im)maturity could be used to tease out the effects of institutional (tightly bound with cultural and political) factors that impact our case university. Similarly political stability, describing a political system that is legitimate, orderly and has continuity (Child & Marinova, 2014, p. 353) sheds light on the CPC’s dominant role developing and implementing high level politics driven policy to govern its key institutions. Conceptualizing culture is difficult. As Leung (2014) argues, we need to add a cultural dimension to theorizing about context. We have highlighted the role of cultural norms related to understanding social relationships, reciprocity and status rooted in religious and cultural ideologies. For example, Chinese cultural norms of openness where people tend to keep silent and avoid openly discussing or even criticizing other people, particularly their political superiors and colleagues (Snape et al., 1998) impacts individual and organizational behaviour. Similarly Leung (2014) points to the usefulness of relational aspects of culture such as guanxi (social/personal reciprocity) embedded in institutional and political aspects of context and shapes how and why individuals use their social relationships. To conclude and taking from the international business literature, developing research agendas that are driven by ‘deeply-contextualised’ studies, Meyer (2014), encourages research that offers a richer understanding of organizations across the globe. We demonstrate this with our study of performance appraisal practices in

14

M. WANG ET AL.

Chinese PSOs. As Kim and Wright (2011, p. 153) note ‘HRM practices and their consequences are essentially embedded in legal and cultural contexts’. As a key HRM practice, performance appraisal is no exception. We argue that the case of Chinese PSOs has lessons for PSOs globally. For example, studies of performance appraisal in other contexts could consider ways in which political factors embedded in PSO structures influence policy implementation and social factors that impact how performance management is implemented and perceived by managers and employees. Similarly, cultural factors such as religious values or particular national ideologies may introduce tightly held social norms such status and relationality that may shape evaluations of employees’ performance as well as how employees respond to performance management practices. Our contribution is the focus on context and how and why context matters (Meyer, 2014). Importantly, attention to the effects and outcomes of the interweaving of key aspects of context, such as political, institutional and cultural factors are relevant for developing research programmes for PSOs globally. What we provide is a model of context that can be applied where the focus study is PSOs and their management practices and processes. A context-sensitive approach could be used to research PSOs that are located in similarly unique political, institutional and cultural contexts to explore the impact of key context factors on their internal policies and processes as they relate to HRM in general and performance management in particular. The limitation of this study, and an area for future research is to expand the research to more universities or other types of PSOs to generalize our research findings, and ideally a longitudinal study could further explore the impact of political, institutional and cultural factors on PSOs in an array of individual contexts (e.g. Hvidman & Andersen, 2014 in the Danish context) or explore these factors across multiple contexts. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding This work was supported by grants received from the Central University Special Project on Basic Scientific Research [grant number Skyb201318, 2013]; and the Social Science Project in Sichuan Province 13th Five-Year Planning Program [grant number SC16E037, 2016].

References Andrews, C. (2016). Integrating public service motivation and self-determination theory: A framework. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29, 238–254. Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance management in the public sector: The ultimate challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 1–22.


15

Bell, D. A. (2015). The china model: Political meritocracy and the limits of democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bevir, M., Rhodes, R., & Weller, P. (2003). Traditions of governance: Interpreting the changing role of the public sector. Public Administration, 81(1), 1–17. Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2006). Performance and performance management. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 443–460). London: SAGE. Brandsen, T., & Kim, S. (2010). Contextualising the meaning of public management reforms: A comparison of the Netherlands and South Korea. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76, 367–386. doi:10.1177/0020852309365671 Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2015). Public sector management reform in developing countries: Perspectives beyond NPM orthodoxy. Public Administration Development, 35, 222–237. Child, J., & Marinova, S. (2014). The role of contextual combinations in the globalization of Chinese firms. Management and Organization Review, 10, 347–371. Chow, K. W. (1988). The management of chinese cadre resources: The politics of performance appraisal (1949–84). International Review of Administrative Sciences, 54, 359–377. CPC Reports (Communist Party of China Reports). (1978). The Interim Measures on the Resettlement of Old and Sick Cadres. Beijing: CPC Publishing House. CPC Reports (Communist Party of China Reports). (2013). The Communiqué of the third plenary session of 18th party central committee. Beijing: CPC Publishing House. CPC Reports (Communist Party of China Reports). (2014). The Cadre Regulations including the selection, appointment of the Party and administrative cadres. Beijing: CPC Publishing House. CPC Reports (Communist Party of China Reports). (2015, October). The general scheme for constructing world-class Chinese Universities and disciplines. Beijing: CPC Publishing House. Decramer, A., Smolders, C., Vanderstraeten, A., & Christiaens, J. (2012). The impact of institutional pressures on employee performance management systems in higher education in the low countries. British Journal of Management, 23, S88–S103. Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2004). Performance management: A model and research agenda. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 556–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00188.x Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dewettinck, K., & Remue, J. (2011). Contextualizing HRM in comparative research: The role of the Cranet network. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 37–49. Dollery, B., & Lee, C. (2004). New public management and convergence in public administrative systems: a comparison between Australia and the Republic of Korea. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 9(1), 1–13. Dong, M. X., & Chen, D. S. (2010). The impact of traditional Chinese culture on government performance evaluation. Journal of the Party School of C.P.C Qingdao Municipal Committee, 5, 42–44. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550. Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444. Farh, J. L., Tsui, A. S., Xin, K., & Cheng, B. S. (1998). The influence of relational demography and guanxi: The Chinese case. Organization Science, 9, 471–488. Gao, J. (2015). Performance measurement and management in the public sector: Some lessons from research evidence. Public Administration and Development, 35, 86–96.

16

M. WANG ET AL.

Gould-Williams, J. S. (2016). Managers’ motives for investing in HR practices and their implications for public service motivation. International Journal of Manpower, 37, 764–776. Haines, V., III, & St-Onge, S. (2012). Performance management effectiveness: Practices or context? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 1158–1175. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.561230 Heberer, T., Trappel, R., & Wang, Z. (2012). Evaluation processes, local cadres’ behavior and local development processes. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, 3, 95–112. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. B. (1988). The confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 5–21. Hu, F. (2013). The construction of Socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. Guangxi Shehui Kexue, 3, 7–11. Hu, J. T., & Dong, N. (2013). A literature review on performance management in public sector organisations. Public Finance Research, 2, 79–80. Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. (2014). Impact of performance management in public and private organisations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 35–58. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mut019 Hwang, K. K., & Hu, X. J. (2004). Mianzi power game of Chinese people. Beijing: Renmin University of China Press. Jiang, X. P. (2005). An analysis of the dilemma and countermeasures of performance evaluation for Chinese civil servants. Social Science Research, 1, 1–5. Kim, S. H., & Wright, P. M. (2011). Putting strategic human resource management in context: A contextualized model of high commitment work systems and its implications in China. Management and Organization Review, 7, 153–174. Leung, K. (2014). Globalization of Chinese firms: What happens to culture? Management and Organization Review, 10, 391–397. Li, J. Z. (2012). Further development of the “Party in charge of cadre management” system. Journal of China Executive Leadership Academy Yan’an, 5, 65–72. Li, L. L. (2013). The transition and research of danwei. Jilin University Journal of Social Sciences Edition, 1, 11–14. Li, J., & Sun, D. R. (2013). The relationship between scientific socialism and socialism with Chinese characteristics. Studies on the Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, 2, 21–25. Liang, J. Q., & Langbein, L. (2015). Performance management, high-powered incentives, and environmental policies in China. International Public Management Journal, 18, 346–385. Liang, X. Y., Marler, J. H., & Cui, Z. Y. (2012). Strategic human resource management in China: East meets west. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 55–70. Liu, G. W. (1991). Chinese feudal cultural values and modernization. Journal of Lanzhou Commercial College, 2, 94–100. Liu, W. (2015). Policy Experiments: Start-up mechanisms and internal logic – Case studies on the performance management policies in China’s public sectors. Chinese Public Administration, 5, 113–119. London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48, 803–839. Manion, M. (1984). Cadre recruitment and management in the People’s Republic of China. Chinese Law & Government, 17, 3–15. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Meyer, K. E. (2014). What the fox says, how the fox works: Deep contextualization as a source of new research agendas and theoretical insights. Management and Organization Review, 10, 373–380.


17

National Bureau of Statistics China (NBSC). (2014). Annual year book for 2013. Author. Retrieved from http://219.235.129.58/search.do?query=就collId=1,2,3&rand= 0.1197307 63167 84836 Ning, X. J. (2013). Socialist core value system and socialist core values. Academic Journal of Shanxi Provincial Committee Party School of C.P.C., 36, 3–5. National People’s Congress Report (NPC Report). (2016). Report on the work of the standing committee of the National People’s Congress, delivered by Premier Li, Keqiang on 7th March, 2016. Beijing: NPC Publishing House. O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2015). Public management, context, and performance: In quest of a more general theory. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 237–256. Owusuw, F. (2012). Organizational culture and public sector reforms in a post–Washington consensus era: Lessons from Ghana’s good reformers. Progress in Development Studies, 12, 135–151. Pichler, S. (2012). The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A metaanalysis. Human Resource Management, 51, 709–732. Poister, T. H., Pasha, O. Q., & Edwards, L. H. (2013). Does performance management lead to better outcomes? Evidence from the US public transit industry. Public Administration Review, 73, 625–636. Pudelko, M. (2006). A comparison of HRM systems in the USA, Japan, and Germany in their socio-economic context. Human Resource Management Journal, 16, 123–153. Qiu, X., & Li, H. L. (2009). China’s environmental super ministry reform: Background, challenges and the future. In Environmental law reporter. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. Retrieved from http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120 Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1–13. Schachter, H. L. (2010). Objective and subjective performance measures: A note on terminology. Administration & Society, 42, 550–567. Shen, X. L. (2012). The reference of performance appraisal of public department from that of the private sectors. Journal of Minzu University of China, 39, 29–35. Shen, J., & Darby, R. (2006). International training and management development in Chinese multinational enterprises. Employee Relations, 28, 342–362. Snape, E., Thompson, D., Yan, F. K., & Redman, T. (1998). Performance appraisal and culture: Practice and attitudes in Hong Kong and Great Britain. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9, 841–861. Sun, L. X. (2008). Shortcomings and countermeasures in performance management of public sectors in China. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology (Social Science), 3, 42–46. Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management Research Methods. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1353–1364. Van Helden, G., & Reichard, C. (2013). A meta-review of public sector performance management research. Tekhne: Review of Applied Management Sudies, 11, 10–20. Wang, X. Y. (2009). Discussion on the path choices of Chinese public administration reforms: The combination of rational bureaucracy and Chinese traditional culture. Shi Ji Qiao, 11, 65–67. Wang, M. (2013). The impact of performance management and measurement on task performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from Chinese public sector organizations. Melbourne: Monash University.

18

M. WANG ET AL.

Wang, M., Zhu, C. J., Zheng, C., & Mayson, S. (2014). Suzhi expectations for double-shouldered academics in Chinese public universities: An exploratory case study. Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management, 5, 158–176. Warner, M. (2010). In search of confucian HRM: Theory and practice in greater China and beyond. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 2053–2078. West, D., & Blackman, D. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 74, 73–81. Whiting, S. (2004). The cadre evaluation system at the grass roots: The paradox of Party rule. In B. J. Naughton & D. L. Yang (Eds.), Holding China together: Diversity and national integration in the Post-Mao Era (pp. 101–119). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Yang, B. Y. (2012). Confucianism, socialism, and capitalism: A comparison of cultural ideologies and implied managerial philosophies and practices in the P. R. China. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 165–178. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yuan, G. (2007). Chinese civil servants, cadres, and bureaucracy. Study and Practice, 3, 57–62. Zeng, H. J. (2009). Socialist core values and performance management of Chinese governments. Heihe Journal, 6, 46–48. Zhai, X. W. (2005). The regeneration of Renqing, Mianzi, and Power. Beijing: Peking University Press. Zhang, L. (2010). Problems and countermeasures of performance management in Chinese public sector organisations. Journal of Beijing Administrative College, 1, 48–51. Zhang, Y. M., & Lovegrove, I. (2009). Performance appraisal for Chinese state-owned banking industry. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 6, 189–200. Zhang, J. S., & Yang, F. (2007). On the necessary harmoniousness between the CPC’s management of cadres and the human resource management of P. R. Department. Journal of Shenzhen University (Humanities & Social Sciences), 24, 74–79. Zhou, L. Y. (2009). The advantages and disadvantages of the bureaucratic system and Chinese public administration reforms. Legal System and Society, 7, 179–180. Zhuo, Y. (2011). Chinese public sector performance evaluation. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.