Procedural justice and French and American performance evaluations

Abstract

Purpose

Increasing diversity of the global workforce calls for research that guides the implementation of culturally sensitive employment procedures. Performance evaluations are often used to support potentially contentious workplace decisions and little research examines the impact of employee participation on fairness perceptions across cultures. The purpose of this paper is to examine the variation between American and French performance evaluations.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper examines American and French employees’ fairness perceptions for their performance evaluations. The focus was on cross‐cultural variation in instrumental and non‐instrumental voice processes by testing Shapiro's model of procedural justice.

Findings

Support was found for the hypothesis that voice would operate predominantly via non‐instrumental processes (e.g. interpersonally responsive behaviors from the evaluator) for the French and partial support that voice influences procedural justice through a combination of non‐instrumental and instrumental processes (perceptions of decision influence) for Americans.

Research limitations/implications

Findings which indicated that French voice appeared to be tied more directly to status‐affirming non‐instrumental processes were supported by Lind and Tyler's relational model of authority and research surrounding the influence of status differentials in participative decision‐making.

Practical implications

Research implications for the design of culturally‐sensitive performance evaluations that take into account fairness perceptions are presented.

Originality/value

The paper indicates that voice expectations and processes are not culturally universal and should be considered in the design of employment practices.

Citation

Fodchuk, K.M. and Sherman, H.D. (2008), "Procedural justice and French and American performance evaluations", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 285-299. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600810892567