CORPORATE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

ISSUE BRIEF

Performance Management for

Global Companies
February 1999

Research Methodology

Company Information

Executive Summary

Report Missions and Imperatives

Research Findings
– How do companies design global performance management programs with respect
to cultural differences?
– How do companies align performance management with overall business
strategy?
– How do companies use performance management data?

This project was researched and written to fulfill the specific research request of a
single member of the Corporate Leadership Council and as a result may not satisfy the
information needs of other members. In its short answer research, the Corporate
Leadership Council refrains from endorsing or recommending a particular product,
service or program in any respect. Sources are contacted at random within the
parameters set by the requesting member, and the resulting sample is rarely of
statistically significant size. That said, it is the goal of the Corporate Leadership
Council to provide a balanced review of the study topic within the parameters of this
project. The Corporate Leadership Council encourages members who have additional
questions about this topic to assign custom research projects of their own design.

Catalog No.: 070-221-168

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 1
FEBRUARY 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND COMPANY INFORMATION 2

OVERVIEW 3

REPORT MISSIONS AND IMPERATIVES 5

RESEARCH FINDINGS 6

BACKGROUND 6

DETERMINING PURPOSE 7

CROSS CULTURAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 8

DESIGNING A PROGRAM 11

TRAINING AND COMMUNICATION 20

PROCESSES AND TOOLS 22

MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS 28

WORKS CITED 31
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 2
FEBRUARY 1999

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In conducting research regarding global performance management, the Corporate Leadership Council
interviewed human resources and performance management staff at five North American corporations.
In addition, researchers reviewed human resources publications, business journals and past Corporate
Leadership Council studies produced on the topic.

COMPANY INFORMATION

Company Number of Employees Revenues Industry

Company A More than 100,000 More than $20 billion Information Technology
Between 20,000 and
Company B Less than $2 billion Information Technology
60,000
Between 7,500 and Between $10 billion and
Company C Information Technology
20,000 $20 billion
Between $2 billion and
Company D Fewer than 7,500 Information Technology
$5 billion
Between 20,000 and Between $10 billion and
Company E Consumer Products
60,000* $20 billion*
* These numbers represent company-wide information; the individual interviewed at Company E facilitates performance
management within a subsidiary organization. Performance management methodology remains consistent throughout the
company although techniques and tools may be specific to the subsidiary.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 3
FEBRUARY 1999

OVERVIEW

The Wall Street Journal credits Lord and Taylor Company with first conducting performance reviews in
1914.1 In the nearly ninety years since its creation, the performance appraisal process has been acclaimed
as everything from an unpopular experiment in the upper reaches of bureaucracy to the tool for unlocking
strategic business success.

Interviews with performance management staff at five North American companies as well as a review of
relevant literature suggest that the true nature of performance management lies somewhere in between
these extremes. Appraising employees’ performance can serve as a useful tool to improve understanding
of organizational strengths and weaknesses, to locate top performers and to plan development and hiring
strategies necessary to build a healthy future workforce. However, conducting performance reviews for
every individual in an organization consisting of thousands of employees and spanning the globe requires
serious effort and assessment in terms of efficient administration, regional applicability and continued
positive impact.

Research suggests three key concepts that are useful in understanding global performance management.
These concepts are outlined below and on the following page. Processes, tools and methodologies
supporting these key concepts comprise the body of this brief.

Consider bridges and skyscrapers constructed in areas prone to high winds and
INCORPORATE earthquakes. Like these structures built to withstand a shifting terrain,
FLEXIBILITY effective global performance management systems may attribute their success
in large part to their flexibility. Companies should exchange the rigidity and
standardization historically present in performance appraisal systems for an
elastic process capable of moving across cultures and positions while still
serving its essential function.

Traditional performance appraisal principals were designed to support a

top-down, control-oriented style of management.2 Since management styles
are changing to an increasingly team-based environment in which employees
are largely responsible for their own development, companies should strive for
an organic system that may be continually refined or reinvented to reflect
contemporary business trends and goals.

Research suggests that effective performance management not only allows

itself to be constantly recreated and improved, but also incorporates an element
of flexibility in its delivery. Companies operate worldwide within vastly
different cultural contexts; performance management should serve as a flexible
tool that may be used to best serve the employees of a particular region in
order to add the greatest value to the entire organization.

1
Chris Lee, “Performance Appraisal,” Training 33, May 1996, 44-59.
2
Charles M. Vance, Shirley R. McClaine, David M. Boje and H. Daniel Stage, “An Examination of the Transferability of
Traditional Performance Appraisal Principles Across Cultural Boundaries,” Management International Review 32, 1992,
313-326.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 4
FEBRUARY 1999

OVERVIEW

ALIGN In order to encourage strong employee performance that translates into

EMPLOYEE business improvement, employees must work towards a common set of goals.
PERFORMANCE Profiled companies typically use the following styles of goal alignment:
WITH BUSINESS
STRATEGY Goal Alignment Models

Cascading Objectives Competency Pyramid

A business goal-driven model A behavior-driven model

Senior management determines Senior management and

central strategies, goals and performance management staff
business initiatives for the coming design a set of common core
year. Each successive level of competencies for employees at all
management and employee group levels. Employees work with their
works with their supervisors to supervisors to design individual
design individual performance objectives that build departmental
objectives that correlate with and organizational competency.
overall corporate goals.

Performance management is worthwhile only if the data gathered during the

process has a visible individual and organizational impact. To ensure that
USE
employees view performance appraisals as a tool for improvement, rather than
PERFORMANCE
as an abstract ranking process, profiled companies use performance review
REVIEW DATA
data in the following ways:

– Employee Development—Managers and employees may work together to

identify strengths and skill gaps and to design action plans for improving
employee performance. Development typically consists of training, stretch
roles, mentor relationships, project leadership, team and department
initiatives, etc.

– Compensation—Although the practice is somewhat controversial, many

companies tie employee performance to a percentage of base salary
increases or to bonuses. Linking performance to compensation gives
employees a tangible link to the performance review process.

– Organizational Planning—Companies may use performance review data

to improve recruiting and hiring techniques by determining the types of
employees that typically succeed in their environment, to assess
company-wide skill gaps, and to plan development initiatives that prepare
employees to meet future business needs.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 5
FEBRUARY 1999

REPORT MISSIONS AND IMPERATIVES

STRUCTURE

1. What is the purpose of the global performance management system?

2. What areas of performance does the company consider in employee performance reviews? Do these areas of
consideration vary depending upon local culture and practices? Why?

3. Does the company consider behavioral competencies (e.g., leadership, communication, teamwork, etc.) in the
employee performance review?

4. What methods does the company use to consider employee performance (e.g., balanced scorecard, downward
review, self-assessment, upward review, 360-degree review, etc.)? Does the company evaluate employees
individually or in teams?

5. Does the review system place employees into rated performance categories? If so, how does the company
define categories?

DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

6. How did the company develop the global performance management system? Which groups or individuals were
involved in this initiative?

7. How did the company launch the global performance management system? Which groups or individuals were
involved in this initiative? How did the company communicate program details to employees?

8. How does the company obtain and communicate management buy-in for the performance management system?
How is performance management linked to the company’s business goals?

ADMINISTRATION

9. How does the company train managers to use the performance management system? How does the company
ensure that managers complete performance reviews for their employees? How does the company guarantee
that the program is administered fairly to all employees?

10. How does the company use performance review results? Does the company create employee development
plans or offer additional training or mentoring to employees following the performance review process?

11. Do performance reviews affect employee compensation? How do evaluations completed by individuals other
than an employee’s supervisor affect compensation?

12. How does the company communicate performance review results to employees? Does the company use a
written review format? Why?

13. How frequently does the review process occur? Do employees receive informal feedback between reviews?
 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 6
FEBRUARY 1999

RESEARCH FINDINGS

BACKGROUND

The table below provides an overview of performance management processes at profiled companies.

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW

Review Criteria Review Directly Results
Process Rating Multiple
Company Aligned with Linked to Presented
Timeframe Scale Raters
Business Strategy Compensation in Writing
Company Annual—
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
A Calendar Year
Company Annual—
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
B Calendar Year
Company Annual—
✔ ✔ ✔ optional ✔
C Calendar Year
Company Annual—
✔ — optional optional ✔
D Anniversary Year
Company Annual—
✔ — ✔ optional ✔
E Calendar Year

The Research Findings section of this report explores the following topics, as indicated in the graphic
below:

Determining Cross-Cultural Designing a Training and Processes Measurement

Background Purpose Performance Program Communication and Tools and Analysis
Management
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 7
FEBRUARY 1999

Determining Cross-Cultural Designing a Training and Processes Measurement

Background Purpose Performance Program Communication and Tools and Analysis
Management

DETERMINING PURPOSE

The first essential step in designing an effective global performance management system is determining
why the organization requires this tool and how and for whom it will be used. Structure varies depending
upon whether companies are attempting to isolate and reward top performers, eliminate poor performers,
increase profits or develop employee skills. “A talented manager,” the Human Resources Director of
Company D notes, “could do an employee review with a blank sheet of paper.” Before producing a form,
performance management staff must determine what purpose and function the program and the form will
serve.

1
The APOP Performance Review Method

The Fast Company article entitled “How to Give Good Feedback” highlights the case
Case In Point: of Parkview Medical Center in Pueblo, Colorado. After struggling to revise the
hospital’s checklist performance review, the vice president of human resources
Parkview eventually decided to eliminate the process entirely. Employees now use a self-
Medical designed method called the APOP or Annual Piece of Paper. Human Resources
Center
determined that the most valuable feedback does not happen once a year, but instead
comes through daily interactions between employees and their peers and managers.
Annual reviews with the APOP are bottom-up requests for assistance and advice
rather than top-down appraisals. The role of the APOP is only to confirm that a
performance conversation, building upon day-to-day feedback, took place.3

Profiled companies cite the following as the purposes behind their performance management systems:

– Company A—To focus on winning in the marketplace, working as a team and increasing effectiveness. The
program is a method for raising standards of performance and accountability.

– Company B—To enhance individual, team and organizational effectiveness through cultural contribution to the
development of the company, aligning performance with business goals; creating a consistent, fair, objective
methodology for measuring the health of the organization; and setting the stage for human resources planning.

– Company C—To assess employee contribution in terms of strategy, management of work, management of self
and management of others.

– Company E—To support and encourage continuous improvement and development through managerial
involvement in guiding development, giving feedback and confronting poor performance.

3
Gina Imperato, “How to Give Good Feedback,” Fast Company, http://www.fastcompany.com/online17/feedback.html
(20 January 1999).
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 8
FEBRUARY 1999

Determining Cross-Cultural Designing a Training and Processes Measurement

Background Purpose Performance Program Communication and Tools and Analysis
Management

CROSS-CULTURAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Performance reviews measure organizational health; however, unlike financial analysis or market
research, the element being scrutinized is human. Much of employees’ work can be judged in terms of
numbers; however, when considering employees individually, the system must incorporate qualitative as
well as quantitative assessments. Each of the profiled companies uses a standardized performance
review format that, when applicable, may be adapted to fit the culture and management style of the non-
North American operating location in which it is used. Core principles, purpose and function remain
constant in global performance management, but review tools, techniques and delivery methods may vary
at the discretion of local management. In non-North American operating locations, employees should be
evaluated in a style that is complementary to the accepted management and work style of that location.

The October 1997 Corporate Leadership Council brief entitled Developing and Communicating Policies
Internationally notes several implications of cross-cultural performance management.4 An overview is
provided below and on the following page:

Implications of Cross-Cultural Policy Implementation

– Observation One—Development Imperative

Flexibility is the most crucial aspect of global policymaking; corporate-wide policies must be adaptable to local
laws, conditions and customs. Broad-based policies are rarely applicable in multiple cultures.

– Observation Two—Centralized versus Decentralized Structures

Companies maintaining decentralized policy-making structures do so in order to ensure that policies remain as
relevant as possible to individual business locations, whereas companies with centralized policy-making
structures prioritize sustaining corporate culture and avoiding duplication of efforts.

– Observation Three—Implications of Decentralized Structures

In companies that utilize decentralized policy-making structures, many traditional questions regarding the policy
development process become irrelevant; local business units are responsible for all facets of policy
development, including any legal or cultural implications and making changes to their existing policies.

– Observation Four—Implications of Centralized Structures

In companies with centralized policy-making structures, the need for flexibility within policies increases. The
companies address cultural differences in similar ways to decentralized companies, developing flexible overall
policy statements which empower local managers to adapt policies to local customs and laws. These companies
typically only allow individual business units to create local policies if the business location faces cultural or
legal situations not addressed by the existing broad corporate policies.

4
Corporate Leadership Council, Developing and Communicating Policies Internationally, October 1997, Washington:
Corporate Executive Board.
 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 9
FEBRUARY 1999

CROSS-CULTURAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)

The 1997 Journal of International Business Studies article entitled “Conceptions of Self and
Performance-Related Feedback in the U.S., Japan and China” offers insight into differences and
similarities between eastern and western perceptions of performance appraisal.5 Key points are outlined
in the table below:

PERFORMANCE REVIEW—UNDERSTANDING EAST AND WEST

Typically Western Characteristics Typically Eastern Characteristics

Collectivist or interdependent notion of self—Collectivist cultures

Independent notion of self—Western cultures possess a socialized such as Japan and, to a lesser extent, China emphasize the
construal of the self as an expressive, contained entity; one that is interconnectedness of people, where one’s primary responsibility
autonomous and free from social influence. is to adjust oneself so as to fit in and maintain harmony with
others.

Group mentality—Thoughts, feelings and actions are organized

Individual mentality—High value is placed on the uniqueness of
and imbued with meaning primarily in reference to the thoughts,
internal qualities like preferences and abilities, as well as the
feelings and actions of others in the relationship. Japanese and
exercise or display thereof. Consequently, the development and
Chinese are more motivated to rely on and be relied upon by
public expression of skills and abilities is the cornerstone of self-
others and to share a common inter-subjective understanding of
esteem.
themselves and the social situation.

Self-serving bias—Westerners typically exhibit a self-serving

bias: a tendency to take credit for success and deny blame for Self-effacing bias—Asians, specifically Japanese, demonstrate a
failure. This bias maintains the integrity of the individualistic self self-effacing bias: a tendency to deny individual credit for
concept by allowing one to bolster self-esteem by assigning success, attributing it instead to external factors. Failure is
internal qualities as the source of success and external reasons as assigned to internal, personal faults like lack of effort or ability.
the source of failure.

Individual performance—Westerners, particularly people from

Group performance—Japanese and Chinese tend to attribute
the United States, tend to attribute performance so as to
performance in reference to group goals, thereby minimizing
distinguish one as better than others, thereby upholding
distinction and promoting harmony.
uniqueness and bolstering self-esteem.

5
James R. Bailey, Chao C. Chen, Sheng-Gong Dou, “Conceptions of Self and Performance-Related Feedback in the U.S., Japan
and China,” Journal of International Business Studies 28, Third Quarter 1997, 605 - 625.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 10
FEBRUARY 1999

CROSS CULTURAL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)

The Program Manager of Performance Management interviewed at Company A

1
Case In Point:
notes that their recently redesigned global performance management system was
rolled out in North America in 1995 and in all other operating locations,
including Europe and Asia, in 1996.

Company A Per the following example, the key to sustaining a performance management
system across vastly different cultures seems to be allowing business units the
discretion to alter the process to best suit the needs of their employees.

FLEXIBILITY AT WORK AT COMPANY A

Issue One: Cultural, caste, gender and management considerations in some Asian countries
make seeking and giving feedback inappropriate between employees of different
levels.

Issue Two: Labor law and trade union agreements in some European countries dictate that
compensation and performance expectations be negotiated at a group, rather than
an individual, level.

Company A Policy:
Company A managers assign employee performance ratings at their own
discretion but are encouraged to round out their perception of employee
performance and potential development areas by seeking feedback from six to
eight other individuals with whom an employee interacts.

Solutions:
– Frame the feedback—Managers may attempt to solicit feedback in the form
of a self-review or by focusing requests only on development tactics, by
requesting information solely from an employee’s peers rather than from
subordinates, or by encouraging reviewers to comment on performance only
as it affects the team. Any relevant feedback is considered valuable as long
as it enhances the perception of the manager and need not cover every aspect
of performance in order to be useful. Rater selection decisions may be
formed at the discretion either of the business unit, department or manager.

– Allow for selective application—In some European locations where appraisal

of front-line employees is regulated, the full performance review system is
used only for exempt, senior-level employees that are not affected by
legislation.

– Use a single rater system—In locations where it is legally or culturally

unacceptable to seek outside feedback, managers may review employees
based on their own evaluation of work quality and personal interaction.
While the company prefers that managers seek outside feedback, it is fully
acceptable and within the bounds of company performance review policy not
to do so.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 11
FEBRUARY 1999

Determining Cross-Cultural Designing a Training and Processes Measurement

Background Purpose Performance Program Communication and Tools and Analysis
Management

DESIGNING A PROGRAM

A 1995 William M. Mercer, Incorporated poll of executives revealed that only 7 percent said their
performance appraisal systems were “excellent” and more than 70 percent had revamped them or
were planning to do so.

Source: Gina Imperato, “How to Give Good Feedback,” Fast Company,

http://www.fastcompany.com/online/17/feedback.html (20 January 1999).

Part of successful performance management is to establish a commitment to designing and refining

processes to create a worthwhile program. This section provides the following information regarding the
development of an effective performance management system:

– Development guidelines
– Key performance management drivers at profiled companies
– Case examples of performance management design projects
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 12
FEBRUARY 1999

DESIGNING A PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

The 1997 HR Focus article entitled “Linking Performance to the Bottom Line” suggests the following
guidelines to consider when planning to create, expand or significantly alter performance review
processes:6

Performance Management Process Guidelines

1. The performance management process must strike a balance between linking employees’ objectives to the
corporate strategy and developing appropriate behaviors.

2. Define corporate culture as a driving force in the company’s growth. Determine which employee behaviors are
necessary to the company’s success.

3. Establish these behaviors as one dimension by which employee performance will be measured in addition to
their specific business objectives. Use these same standards as a framework for selection, hiring, recruiting,
and organizational and professional development.

4. Tier employee objectives from the top down. Every employee’s performance objectives should support the
corporate objectives in the strategic business plan. HR development can use a “tiering” process, starting at
the unit level and working down, to ensure that the activities and behaviors at each level focus on achieving
specific business goals.

5. Employees should develop performance plans that establish expected behaviors and define “SMART”
objectives: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound.

6. Align objectives horizontally across the organization. Share and integrate objectives of departments that
interface with one another.

7. Mandate training at each level so employees understand the performance management process.

8. Conduct individual sessions between managers and direct reports in order to set objectives, identify the
attributes needed to achieve objectives, develop performance plans and, where appropriate, discuss the link to
compensation.

9. Review the process and make necessary adjustments in the way the company defines, measures and rewards
performance.

6
Karen Mailliard, “Linking Performance to the Bottom Line,” HR Focus 74, June 1997, 17-18.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 13
FEBRUARY 1999

DESIGNING A PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Research suggests that the key drivers for performance management system creation and revision
determine not only the structure and scope of the process, but also influence how employees perceive the
result. Key drivers for performance management program creation and reform at profiled companies are
outlined in the table below.

ROLE OF KEY DRIVERS IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

Company Key Drivers
– CEO and Senior Vice President of Human Resources—These executives recognized
that business results were lagging while most employees were rated as “exceeding
expectations.” In 1994, they initiated an analysis of objectives, competencies, behaviors

–
and understanding of rating categories.
Human Resources Global Team—A team of international human resources staff
assessed problems with the performance management process and created a more
Company A effective system that was rolled out in 1995-1996. This team currently monitors the
success of the program and makes necessary revisions. (for further information regarding

–
the Company A Global Team, see “Case in Point: Company A” on the following page.)
Upper-level management—High level managers contribute to the success of the
performance management program by exhibiting program buy-in at relevant meetings
and by holding their teams and divisions accountable for program participation.

– Human Resources and Education & Training—These groups evaluate the

performance management program biennially. They gather feedback from managers and
supervisors concerning the usefulness of reviews, sources of problems and ways to
improve. When making changes to the performance management system, they typically

–
complete a trial run with mangers and employees in a focus group setting.
Company B Upper-level management—Management supports the performance review process
through accessibility to the HR and Education & Training team, by lending their names
to memos and performance review documents and by holding their teams accountable
for program participation.

– Human Resources, Compensation and Executive Development staff—This group

maintains the performance plan and fields problems and suggestions. Company C has
grown rapidly in recent years; the performance review plan was designed prior to
expansion outside of the United States. This group works to export the program and to

–
work with staff at remote locations to adapt the system to local standards.
Company C Upper-level management—Members of upper-management serve as a sounding board
for revisions and new ideas in performance management. Executives review the process
at the beginning of each year, particularly the link between performance management
and the merit-based pay system.

– Cross functional team—In the mid-1990s, staff members from corporate employment,
staffing and compensation functions worked with an industrial psychologist in
Company E organizational development to create the competency model upon which the
performance management system is based.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 14
FEBRUARY 1999

DESIGNING A PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Companies operating on a global scale should incorporate input from employees outside North America
as they design and refine performance management systems. By creating a system that theoretically
serves all employees, regardless of the nation in which they work, companies may secure a higher level
of support from managers and employees who use the performance management program. Company A
developed a global performance management policy during 1994 by using a global team. This tactic is
described below.

1
Redefining Performance Management Systems at Company A—1994

Scenario: The CEO and Senior Vice President of Human Resources at

Case In Point: Company A charged corporate Human Resources with
evaluating the effectiveness of the performance management
Company A system and designing a performance review process with a
global scope.

Response: Corporate Human Resources formed a global team consisting of the Human Resources
staff members from the following operating locations:

– Asia-Pacific region – Latin-America

– Canada – United States
– Europe

This team solicited feedback from local employees through roundtable discussions and
focus groups to assess the following elements of performance review:

– Areas of frustration
– Elements that work well
– Inhibitors to review process success

Result: The team determined that several key concerns and suggestions were standard
worldwide. The group used these core concerns as a framework for establishing the
processes, goals and communication techniques within the global performance
management system.

Follow Up: The global team meets once per year to re-evaluate the performance management
program. The group maintains contact in the interim via e-mail and conference calls in
order to monitor the pulse of performance management issues, ideas for addressing
problems, and communication/education lapses and successes.

Significant and systematic concerns are presented to the Senior Vice President of Human
Resources and CEO’s review. Potential changes may be tested at a local level in focus
groups.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 15
FEBRUARY 1999

DESIGNING A PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

Align Departmental Effort

1
Case In Point:
Objective: Measure and reward employee achievement.

Issue One: Business units lack overall alignment

Following several mergers, consolidations and business unit realignments,
Sprint business units heavily dependent on one another identified internal objectives
Corporation but did not understand their contribution to the company’s overall business
objectives.

Issue Two: Performance appraisals measure financial results only.

Performance evaluations were based solely on “meeting the numbers,” even if
this objective damaged valuable relationships critical to the company’s overall
success.

Solution: Align company objectives vertically and horizontally.

Develop the “LINK Performance Management Program,” a company-wide
system that connects employee performance with bottom-line results. With
LINK, Sprint aligns corporate objectives vertically and horizontally throughout
the company. Departmental objectives serve as the basis for setting individual
employee goals.

In addition to measuring performance by achievement of departmental

objectives, LINK also provides a set of
behavior-based parameters used to measure performance improvements and
professional development. These behaviors provide a common language in
which managers and employees may discuss performance.

Results: ROI of more than 3,700 percent.

As of June 1997, 70 percent of Sprint’s exempt employees had made the
transition to LINK; continued rollout is underway. A late 1996 study of
employees who had participated in the system since 1994 attributed nearly
$118 million in increased sales and/or reduced costs to the system, for an ROI
of more than 3,700 percent.

Source: Karen Mailliard, “Linking Performance to the Bottom Line,” HR Focus 74, June 1997, 17-18.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 16
FEBRUARY 1999

DESIGNING A PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

1
Company D: A Work In Progress

Scenario: Company D has experienced rapid growth in recent years, expanding from a
Case In Point: single location in which most employees knew one another to a global
company with more than 200 offices worldwide. Most members of senior
Company D management grew up in a Company D culture that valued individual
accountability, a low level of bureaucracy and self-motivation. As the
company expands, senior management is beginning to recognize a need for a
consistent worldwide performance management system but does not want to
compromise corporate culture.
Company D is in the early stages
of transitioning to a global The Human Resources Director at Company D discussed two key goals for the
performance management system. future global performance management system: to let senior management drive
The Human Resources Director the effort and to align performance management with corporate culture. She
considers two programs already in place, the performance review format and
explains goals and objectives for
the sales bonus program, to contain valuable elements that may be incorporated
the process. in future plans. The Human Resources Director also is considering several key
questions that will help establish the process.

Objective: The Human Resources Director at Company D believes that within the next two years the company will
establish a consistent performance management program to meet developmental needs of employees. The
goals, foundations, questions and tools described below and on the following pages will serve as a starting
point for developing a consistent global performance management system for Company D.

Goal: Senior Executives will be Performance Management Drivers.

The Human Resources director at Company D notes a growing sentiment among senior executives toward
creating a consistent method for managing performance not because it is an industry standard, but because
they sense the need for performance management as an employee-enhancing tool. A global performance
management system would enable managers to improve organizational performance in the following ways:

–
–
Identify and work to close individual and organizational skill gaps

–
Locate top performers in a decentralized, geographically disparate organization
Ensure that promising employees are retained and developed

Goal: The Performance Management Tool Will Fit the Corporate Culture
The corporate culture at Company D would clash with an impersonal performance management system
designed to measure, rank and monitor employees. Instead performance management should provide
managers with a method for identifying what employees do well and areas wherein they could improve, and
designing an action plan to reach a higher level of performance.

(continued on the following page)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 17
FEBRUARY 1999

DESIGNING A PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

CASE IN POINT: COMPANY D (CONTINUED)

Company D may use knowledge from two of its current programs as a foundation upon which to
build a global performance management system.

Foundation One:
Current Performance Review Format
Company D encourages managers to offer employees formalized feedback through performance reviews at
employees’ anniversary employment dates. The Human Resources Director estimates that approximately
60 percent of managers in the United States use this process. Others, both domestically and internationally,
should provide employees with continual verbal feedback as needed and may pursue other performance
review templates at their own discretion.

Description: Current Performance Management Format:

–
–
Focused on employee development

–
Does not correlate directly with compensation
Ratings are optional—managers may choose to give feedback within suggested categories rather
than to assign employees to rated categories. The Human Resources Director indicates that this
non-rated approach may carry over into future performance management plans as ratings may not
function as a motivator within the company’s corporate culture.

Suggested areas for employee evaluation include the following:

–
–
Quality of work

–
Capacity to achieve

–
Job and company knowledge
Communication and working with others: building effective teams, verbal and written

–
communications, guidance and feedback

–
Planning and organization

–
Analysis and judgement
Innovation, initiative and creativity

Rating Scale:

–
–
Outstanding

–
Competent
Needs improvement

Building Blocks:

The elements below of the existing performance review format will help construct the future global
performance management system.

– –
– –
Core areas for evaluation Flexible delivery
Developmental focus Manager discretion

(continued on the following page)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 18
FEBRUARY 1999

DESIGNING A PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

CASE IN POINT: COMPANY D (CONTINUED)

Foundation Two:
Bonus Program for Sales Employees
Sales employees at Company D set target objectives with managers and receive a percentage of a set bonus
potential based on performance.

Description: Senior executives set sales goals; these goals cascade downward through the organization. Local managers
worldwide modify company goals and provide regional and business unit input. Sales staff works with
managers to set goals for sales throughout the year.

Building Blocks:

The elements below of the existing sales bonus program will help construct the future global performance
management system.

– Institutional understanding of goal alignment and cascading objectives concept as successful value

–
creators for the organization

–
Internal model for linking compensation to performance
Tested model for communicating objectives between employees and managers and measuring
achievement at the end of a set period

Questions: The Human Resources Director at Company D posits the following points of consideration that Company D
executives and performance management staff must evaluate as they structure the new global performance
management program.

What is the purpose behind global performance management?

Based on corporate culture and burgeoning management sentiments, the Human Resources Director anticipates that the program
mission will include the following:

New Global Performance Management Mission Guidelines

–
–
To identify employee skills gaps and work to close them in an effort to improve goal alignment and organizational health.
To give managers a tool to compare expectations with employee achievements and to create a plan for improving

–
performance in challenge areas.
To create a process that visibly and effectively serves employees and their managers rather than an administrative “form”
centered task.

Will employees be placed into rated performance categories?

The Human Resources Director indicates that senior management will decide if a rated performance scale fits with the company
culture. Her thoughts on designing a rating scale are as follows:

“There is no perfect number of levels, it could be three or four or twenty and there will always be employees who fall
somewhere in between. If we choose to use a rating model, I would suggest four levels. It is simple and forces managers
either to say, ‘yes, an employee is performing well’ or ‘no, this employee needs to improve in certain areas.’ A four point
scale helps evaluators resist the temptation to lump people in the middle.”

(continued on the following page)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 19
FEBRUARY 1999

DESIGNING A PROGRAM (CONTINUED)

CASE IN POINT: COMPANY D (CONTINUED)

Question: What process will the company use to develop a consistent, global performance
management system?

Preliminary Global Performance Management Plan

1. Senior executives set “big picture” goals and determine how performance management will be aligned
with business goals and financial strategy.

2. Human Resources serve as administrator and organizer of the process. The department will solicit
concerns, benefits and drawbacks, and recommendations of useful tools and processes from front-line
employees and managers worldwide. Gathering input from employees outside management will ensure
that the program is structured in a way that makes information, reviews, feedback and ratings acceptable
and useful to the greatest number of employees.

3. Human Resources and senior management will develop and test a global performance management
format that adequately serves employee structure and management objectives.

Tools: Skills Development System—Company D currently is creating a “skills development system” that will
include a computer database that supports a competency-based staffing model. The system would profile job
skills and levels necessary for effectiveness within each position or group of positions. Individual employee
performance then could be benchmarked against recognized position competencies, thereby identifying areas
for development and potential steps to reach a higher performance level.

–
Benefits:

–
Equalize manager expectations

–
Provide development suggestions
Save time

Considerations:
The Human Resources Director notes that the skills development system would never be used as a substitute
for individual evaluation in which managers consider employee circumstances, potential and challenges of
the business or position.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 20
FEBRUARY 1999

Determining Cross-Cultural Designing a Training and Processes Measurement

Background Purpose Performance Program Communication and Tools and Analysis
Management

TRAINING AND COMMUNICATION

A global performance management system is effective only if all employees understand why and how to
use it. Managers should have access to training so that they administer the process properly and so that
they convey developmental goals to employees in a sensitive and successful manner.

The chart on the following page presents a composite training and communication process based on
information from profiled companies for use in rolling out, administering and maintaining the
performance management system.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 21
FEBRUARY 1999

Advance Introductory Continuing Communication

Communication Communication and and Training Resources
Training

PRACTICE ONE: PRACTICE THREE: PRACTICE SIX: PRACTICE NINE:

Solicit Input—Performance Train Local Managers—Performance Offer Optional Tools Training— Provide a Local Contact Person—Each
management leaders solicit ideas management leaders train managers within Training divisions offer optional sessions location should have a contact person,
from senior management, line each local business unit. Managers in turn 2-3 times per year to help managers use typically a human resources generalist,
managers and front line employees introduce the program to their employees. 360-degree reviews, write effective compensation administrator or call center
during the performance management feedback, understand compensation employee, whom managers and employees
development process. PRACTICE FOUR: decisions, etc. may approach with questions and concerns
Prepare Communication Materials— regarding performance management.
PRACTICE TWO: Worldwide managers receive a PRACTICE SEVEN:
Introduce Program to comprehensive communication package Organize On-going Training—
Management—Prior to rolling out containing materials to assist in Corporate Human Resources Director PRACTICE TEN:
the performance management explaining and facilitating performance works with local HR to organize Create a Performance Management
program, introduce the process to management within team or department mandatory, biannual manager training Intranet Site—Performance management
senior management. Explain goals meetings. sessions which include a performance leaders post due dates, program reminders,
and objectives, special management module guidelines and forms on the company
responsibilities and the importance PRACTICE FIVE: intranet.
of management buy-in. Demonstrate Executive Support— PRACTICE EIGHT:
Executives communicate to their Train New Managers—Performance PRACTICE ELEVEN:
employees the value of performance management leaders routinely offer Build a Presentation Packet—

–
management in the following areas: introductory training for recently hired or Performance management leaders assemble
promoted managers.
–
Remaining competitive in the industry background materials, sample forms,
Tying employee performance to PowerPoint presentations, videos and

–
business goals talking points available for managers to use
Encouraging effective management, in presenting performance management at

–
employee and business practices team or department meetings.
Focusing on retention by providing
feedback and development
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 22
FEBRUARY 1999

Determining Cross-Cultural Designing a Training and Processes Measurement

Background Purpose Performance Program Communication and Tools and Analysis
Management

PROCESSES AND TOOLS

All profiled companies that use consistent global performance management processes focus on key goals
and functions but allow a significant amount of flexibility in program and process delivery. This section
provides information regarding the following central process areas for administering a performance
management system. The core processes discussed on the following pages include:

– Setting a timeline
– Determining objectives
– Obtaining feedback
– Delivering results

The performance review process at profiled companies occurs every year and includes the elements
presented in the graphic below.

1. Senior
Management sets 2. Managers work with
corporate goals and employees to set
objectives and personal goals that
establishes key correlate with
competencies for management
employee objectives and
performance. competencies.

4. Managers gather 3. Managers monitor

review input from employee performance
multiple raters, and offer informal
complete the feedback and
performance appraisal development
and meet with suggestions.
employees to discuss
results.
 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 23
FEBRUARY 1999

PROCESSES AND TOOLS (CONTINUED)

Setting a Timeline

Research suggests that most companies using a formal, consistent global performance management
system do so through an annual review process. Ease of administration, consistent application and
effective measurement typically require that the process be carried out on an annual timeline that is
standard for all employees. Some organizations prefer to review employees annually on their anniversary
date of employment, however Company A, Company B, Company C and Company E all use a set annual
process. The performance management leader at Company E indicates that the organization transitioned
in the past five years from an anniversary date of review to a standard review period model. All of the
timelines for profiled companies are similar; a composite sample is presented below.

–
–
Senior management determines key business objectives for the coming year.
January Performance management leaders distribute review forms, lists of competencies, company and business unit

–
goals and training and reference materials.
Worldwide executives meet with their teams to set objectives that support corporate goals. This process
cascades downward through the levels of management to front-line employees. These goals, typically situated
within overall competency areas or business-wide strategy areas, comprise the development or personal
objectives section of employee reviews and serve as the basis for measuring performance at the end of the year.

Throughout – Managers are encouraged to meet informally with employees to convey performance feedback and to adjust

–
the Year goals and objectives if the requirements of the position, project or department change.
Employees that are hired or that move into a new position in the middle of a review cycle typically meet with

–
managers to discuss performance objectives within the first 4-6 weeks of employment.
Employees that leave a position for another department or a position outside the company have a final
performance review with their manager.

September – Performance management leaders designate a period (typically 3-6 weeks in length) during which managers
through ask employees to complete self-reviews. Where appropriate, managers may also ask employees to suggest a list
November of 5-10 peers, team members, reports, internal and external customers and other managers who have insight

–
into their performance to serve as multiple performance raters.
Managers select multiple raters with relevant contact with the employee to provide performance feedback.

December – Employees review themselves to determine the degree to which they have accomplished goals that they set out

–
through at the beginning of the year.

–
January Multiple raters turn in performance reviews to the requesting manager.
Managers consider input from multiple raters when reviewing employees. Some companies use review results

–
to assign employees to a rated performance category, which is often linked to compensation.
Managers meet with employees to walk through written performance review information, provide feedback,
suggest development plans and create objectives for the coming year. Employees typically have the opportunity
to respond to evaluations with which they disagree and may note differences on the performance appraisal

–
form.
Managers return performance appraisal forms to performance management leaders and Human Resources for
use in calculating compensation changes, organizational skill gaps, hiring strategies and performance results.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 24
FEBRUARY 1999

PROCESSES AND TOOLS (CONTINUED)

Determining Objectives

All profiled companies base performance management on individual, rather than team, accomplishments.
Teamwork often is a behavioral competency upon which an individual may be reviewed; managers
consider individual work on a team project as they rate employee performance.

Individual employees at all profiled companies work with their managers to determine a set of objectives
at the beginning of the annual performance review period. As described in the Executive Summary
portion of this brief, profiled companies organize performance goal setting either by cascading goals
downward through the organization or by allowing employees and managers to build on a prescribed
base of competencies. The table below provides an outline of objective setting techniques used by
profiled companies.

OBJECTIVE SETTING TECHNIQUES

Company Technique
– Senior management sets overall objectives and business strategies; employees at
each subsequent level develop performance objectives based on these

–
company-wide goals.
Employees create 2-3 objectives in each of the company’s three super-categories:
Company A winning in the marketplace, executing work efficiently and effectively, and

–
succeeding as a team.
Managers may coordinate some common performance goals for employee groups
with large numbers of people in very similar jobs (e.g., assembly line workers,
packers).
– Employees and managers work together to create objectives within two

–
super-categories: Operating Competencies and Individual Objectives.
Operating Competencies are broad, overall objectives for the entire company that
are determined by senior management. The goals are common for every employee
but the behaviors associated with them and methods for measurement vary based
on employee level and position. Operating Competencies include the following:

• Achieve growth and profitability

• Respond flexible and immediately to customer needs
• Strive for technical superiority
• Sustain individual commitment to company goals
Company B
– Individual Objectives are specific personal job responsibility or developmental
goals set between employees and their managers. Individual Objectives may fall
into the following areas:

• Job description
• Production standard
• Personal development objectives—these must be specific, measurable, agreed
upon, aggressive, relevant, time-bound, empowering, reachable and have
existing resources.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 25
FEBRUARY 1999

PROCESSES AND TOOLS (CONTINUED)

Determining Objectives

OBJECTIVE SETTING TECHNIQUES (CONTINUED)

Company Technique
– Employees use four main super-categories to guide objective setting. The
objectives are as follows:

• Strategic performance
• Management of work
• Management of others
• Management of self

– The super-categories are not weighted; one or more categories may be omitted if
employees and managers do not find it useful (i.e., a front-line employee would not

–
create objectives within “management of others.)
Company C Managers use the following behaviors within the four categories to structure goals
and as a common vocabulary for providing feedback:

• Strategic performance: business acumen, creativity, strategic agility,

managing vision and purpose
• Managing work: dealing with ambiguity, skills, decision quality, delegation,
manager courage, managing and measuring work, organizational agility,
planning, priority setting and process management
• Managing people: approach, development reports, managing diversity,
hiring and staffing and team building
• Managing self/development: customer focus, ethics, values, integrity,
intellectual horsepower, drive for results, functional and technical skills
– Employees build expectations based on several company-wide core competencies.
In 1996, the company compared all lists of competencies for every job and
function and filtered out several key points that should apply to all employees. The
behaviors and objectives linked with competencies may vary based on position and
level within the company. Competencies include the following:

• Analysis and planning

• Business focus
• Commitment to development
Company E • Customer focus
• Empowerment
• Influence
• Innovation and change
• Professionalism
• Results orientation
• Systems thinking
• Team orientation
• Technical/functional expertise
• Valuing people
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 26
FEBRUARY 1999

PROCESSES AND TOOLS (CONTINUED)

Obtaining Feedback

All profiled companies encourage managers to enhance their perception of employee performance by
seeking review input from alternative sources, including the following:

✔ Direct reports ✔ Other managers ✔ Self-review

✔ External customers ✔ Peers ✔ Teammates
✔ Internal customers ✔ Project and initiative leaders

Managers have the discretion to select alternative reviewers within each of the profiled companies;
managers and employees typically work together to compile a suggested list of potential reviewers.
Within each profiled organization, managers used multi-rater feedback as a method for rounding out their
own perception of employee performance. The final employee score or category of achievement is
determined by the manager; none of the profiled companies uses a formula that quantifies or figures in
feedback from other raters.

Rating Tools

1
Case In Point:
Performance reviews that raters fill out typically either consist of questions
soliciting a narrative response, a numerical scale or category to select, or a
combination of the two. When soliciting feedback from employees other than
the reviewing manager, Company A uses a form that poses two narrative
Company A response questions. Reviewers should consider these questions within the
context of Company A’s three overall objectives—winning in the marketplace,
working as a team and increasing effectiveness. Their responses should focus
primarily upon behaviors that support the main objectives and suggestions for
behavioral changes that would enable the employee being reviewed to support
the main objectives. The questions for reviewers are as follows:

1. What is the employee doing well?

2. What could the employee do to improve?

The Performance Management Program Manager at Company A offered the following insights into the
relative merit of narrative response versus numerical response:

NARRATIVE VERSUS NUMERICAL RESPONSES

Narrative Response Numerical Response
– Allows managers to draw particular
–
–
Easily measurable
–
attention to certain areas or topics
–
Can be converted to hard data
–
Benefits Encourages substantive feedback
Useful in comparing employees across
–
Maximum flexibility
locations and functions
Values multiple response types and topics
– –
– –
Limits anonymity Lacks substantive input
Drawbacks Not easily measurable May not be taken as seriously by reviewer
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 27
FEBRUARY 1999

PROCESSES AND TOOLS (CONTINUED)

Delivering Results

All profiled companies encourage managers to present performance appraisal results to employees in
writing. Managers should meet formally with each employee to review results, discuss the process and
consider any concerns the employee might have with the review process or conclusion. Many managers
use this appointment as a time to design preliminary objectives for the coming year or to discuss
developmental plans to boost employee performance. Interviewed performance management leaders note
the following reasons for presenting performance review results to employees in writing:

✔ Allows employees and managers to monitor long term performance improvement

✔ Creates a legal record upon which managers may later base promotion, transfer or
termination
✔ Explicitly states rating and compensation information
✔ Gives employees a record of results and suggestions
✔ Provides a format for performance review conversation
✔ Serves as a document for use in potential appeals process
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 28
FEBRUARY 1999

Determining Cross-Cultural Designing a Training and Processes Measurement

Background Purpose Performance Program Communication and Tools and Analysis
Management

MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS

Profiled companies use performance review feedback to create employee development plans, to
determine increases in compensation and to assess overall organization skill gaps and development
needs. All profiled companies offer some type of rated performance scale, although use of the scale is
not mandatory in all organizations. Rating scales and, where applicable, recommended category
percentages are presented below. Recommended percentages typically are monitored at the departmental
level to allow for adequate sample size.

Sample Rating Scales at Profiled Companies

1
Rating Scale Recommended Percentage Distribution

Extraordinary 10 - 15%
Case In Point:
Achieved/Exceeded Commitments 65 - 70%
Company A

Achieved Some/Most Commitments

15-25% (combined)
Unsatisfactory

Rating Scale Recommended Percentage Distribution

1
Case In Point:
Exceeding All Expectations 10%

Exceeding Most Expectations 40%

Company C 40%
Meeting Expectations

Meeting Most Expectations

10% (combined)
Unsatisfactory

(continued on the following page)

 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 29
FEBRUARY 1999

MEASUREMENT AND ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)

Sample Rating Scales at Profiled Companies (continued)

1
Rating Scale Recommended Percentage Distribution

Always Exceeds Requirements Company B does not use a

Case In Point: and Enhances Performance recommended percentage
distribution scale for employee
Company B Usually Exceeds Requirements ratings. The Director of Human
Resources at Company B indicates
Meets All Requirements that ratings typically follow a bell
and Sometimes Exceeds curve with approximately 80% of
employees falling into the “Usually
Exceeds Requirements” category.
Less than Acceptable

Performance Review Appeals

Employees at all profiled companies have some method for discussing ratings with their managers or
“pushing back” on ratings that they believe do not accurately represent their performance level and
achievement. The example below outlines Company A’s employee appeals process. This program began
in 1996, exists formally only in North America and may be used to resolve any type of employee
grievance.

Performance Review Appeals Process

Conversation Conversation Approach Conduct

with Manager Manager’s Higher Level Panel Review
Manager Manager

Higher ranking members of

Dissatisfied employees If an employee and manager Should Step Two fail, management should arrange a
should address and are unable to resolve employees may approach any panel review in which five
attempt to resolve conflict regarding higher level manager within uninvolved employees hear
performance review performance management, a the organization through employee grievances,
concerns directly with dissatisfied employee may Company A’s open door management response and other
their managers during the then dialogue with their policy. relevant information. The panel
performance review manager’s manager makes a recommendation of
conversation. action that the employee and
manager will follow.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 30
FEBRUARY 1999

Compensation

Company A, Company B and Company C link compensation directly to performance management.

Performance management staff at Company D and Company E indicate that performance review results
may influence management recommendations for salary increases for employees, but that the processes
are not linked directly. The models below describe the association between performance appraisal and
compensation at profiled companies.

Models for Linking Performance Review and Compensation

1
Company A uses a formula that combines the following elements to produce
a percentage of salary that serves as variable pay for each employee:

Case In Point: ✔ Business Unit Results

Company A
✔ Individual Performance

Company A ties a percentage-based bonus to each rated performance

category. Employees falling into the “Unsatisfactory” category do not
receive a bonus.

The Performance Management Program Manager indicates that percentages

increase significantly with each successive level of performance.

Company C, like Company A, specifies a percentage increase in salary that

1
Case In Point:
corresponds to each performance rating category. Performance ratings, in
combination with corporate financial results, also drive bonus awards.

The Director of Compensation interviewed at Company C indicates that

Company C employees in the highest category of achievement typically receive a salary
increase of approximately 15 percent while employees in the lowest two
levels do not receive a merit-based salary increase.

Each business unit at Company B receives a set budget, based on company

1
Case In Point:
financial results, to dedicate to merit-based pay increases. Managers
determine percentages of increase on an individual employee basis based on
performance and current salary level. Company B does not use a standard
percentage increase for each performance category; however, managers do
Company B use performance appraisal information to determine which employees
deserve salary increases and to recommend an amount.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 31
FEBRUARY 1999

WORKS CITED

Lee, Chris. “Performance Appraisal.” Training 33 (May 1996): 44-59

(Obtained through LEXIS-NEXIS, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.).

Vance, Charles M., Shirley R. McClaine, David M. Boje and H. Daniel Stage. “An Examination of the
Transferability of Traditional Performance Appraisal Principles Across Cultural Boundaries.”
Management International Review 32 (1992): 313-326
(Obtained through LEXIS-NEXIS, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.).

Imperato, Gina. “How to Give Good Feedback.” http://www.fastcompany.com/online17/feedback.html

(20 January 1999).

Corporate Leadership Council. Developing and Communicating Policies Internationally.

Washington: Corporate Executive Board (October 1997).

Bailey, James R., Chao C. Chen and Sheng-Gong Dou. “Conceptions of Self and Performance-Related
Feedback in the U.S., Japan and China.” Journal of International Business Studies 28 (1997):
605-625 (Obtained through LEXIS-NEXIS, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.).

Mailliard, Karen. “Linking Performance to the Bottom Line.” HR Focus 74 (June 1997): 17-18
(Obtained through LEXIS-NEXIS, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.).

Corporate Leadership Council. Global Performance Management. Washington:

Corporate Executive Board (September 1997).
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR GLOBAL COMPANIES PAGE 32
FEBRUARY 1999

Professional Services Note

The Corporate Leadership Council has worked to ensure the accuracy of the information it provides to its members.
This project relies upon data obtained from many sources, however, and the Council cannot guarantee the accuracy
of the information or its analysis in all cases. Further, the Council is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or
other professional services. Its projects should not be construed as professional advice on any particular set of facts
or circumstances. Members requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional. Neither
Corporate Executive Board nor its programs is responsible for any claims or losses that may arise from any errors or
omissions in their reports, whether caused by Corporate Executive Board or its sources.