Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

perception of the process by those who are
affected by it is key.
Uncertainty regarding the impact of diversity
policy on evaluation of personnel takes
various forms. Minority personnel consistently
are alert to any cues that they are not being
evaluated fairly in a manner consistent with
the evaluation of personnel from the dominant
culture. The majority culture personnel
sometimes feel that they are being evaluated
more harshly or ‘held to a higher standard’
than those protected by affirmative action
programmes. This is particularly true of white
male middle-level managers. This focuses
attention upon the review process.
Supervisors, who conduct periodic reviews,
are uncomfortable with the review process
when it applies to someone from another culture.
It is particularly true of white male supervisors
who say they must strive to be
‘politically correct’ in all of their statements.
Some indicate that in the effort to ‘bend over
backwards to be fair, I am probably sugar
coating what I say’. ‘I know I have to document
any problems; my expert reaction to an
employee’s sub-par performance is not
enough in this environment. I am sometimes
uncertain of precisely how to proceed.’
Diversity personnel and mid-level managers
desire greater certainty regarding
how others are monitoring them. Most of
the literature on performance appraisal
recognizes the essential element of reducing
uncertainty in the process. However, that
recognition is in the context of legality and
observable behaviour and does not generally
include the impact of various cultures on
mindsets, perceptions, and its consequent
behaviour. Specific issues of cultural differences
are usually neglected. The US legal
requirements drive the process so that recommendations
for legally sound appraisals
generally set appraisal criteria. They tend to
include the recommendation that appraisals
be specifically job related, based on behaviour
rather than individual traits, relate to specific
features not holistic assessments, and
should be something over which the subject
of the evaluation has control (Barrett and
Kernan, 1987; Beck-Dudley and McEnvoy,
1991; Bernardine, Kane, Ross, Spina and
Johnson, 1995; Martin and Bartol, 1991;
Veglahn, 1993). The literature also includes
the ubiquitous communication expectation
that the appraisal should be stated in descriptive/objective
terms as opposed to subjective/evaluative
terms and that the appraisal
must be communicated clearly to the person
being rated. Theoretically uncertainty reduction
focuses on self-awareness and knowledge
of others (Berger and Bradac, 1982). When
the members are from divergent cultures the
relationship strategies to reduce uncertainty
may be quite different (Gudykunst, 1988).
Diversity is more complex than the often
unspoken, but underlying, assumption about
diversity that it breeds conflict which can
impede work performance and reduce productivity.
This common perception is at
odds with group theory, and the concept of
democratic decision making, that promotes
the clash of expressed ideas as an effective
method to work for answers to problems. The
underlying worldview and mindset of many
workers from collectivist cultures, is alien to
the concept of expressed clash being valued in
task relationships. The cultural values of an
individual may well override the influence of
their education and organizational environment.
For example if a team member places a
high value on harmony, even if she possesses
informational and worldview diversity, she
may not readily contribute to the group
debate.
Diversity is more complex than the easily
observable distinctions of race, gender, age
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors