200 Performance Reviews and Appraisal System

Performance Reviews Across Cultures: Why Global Appraisal Systems Fail

In multinational organizations, few HR tools create as many problems as the Performance Reviews and Appraisal System. Designed to evaluate performance, encourage development, and ensure fairness, these systems often do the opposite precisely when applied globally. Employees feel misunderstood, managers feel constrained, and organizations wonder why “best practice” models do not work well in other countries.

The core problem is not the idea of performance reviews themselves, but the assumption that performance evaluation is culturally neutral. It is not. Nothing is culturally neutral. Expectations around hierarchy, individuality, competition, and predictability fundamentally shape how performance is perceived, judged, and discussed. Using Hofstede’s first four dimensions—Hierarchy, Individualism, Goal Orientation, and Predictability—we can better explain why a single global Performance Reviews and Appraisal System regularly breaks down, demotivates, and simply doesn’t work.

To illustrate this, I will compare four countries often involved in international organizations: the United States, the Netherlands, France, and China.

Hierarchy: Who Judges Whom?

Hierarchy determines how comfortable people are with inequality in their society.

In low Hierarchy cultures like the Netherlands, performance reviews are expected to be two-way conversations. Employees openly question feedback, challenge goals, and expect transparency from their manager(s). A manager who delivers a one-sided evaluation risks being seen as authoritarian or outdated and will not be accepted.

The United States, while still relatively low in Hierarchy, places more emphasis on the manager as evaluator. Dialogue is encouraged, but final authority clearly rests with leadership. Performance discussions are often framed around future opportunities rather than the hierarchical position of the individual.

France occupies a middle position. Authority is accepted (which is not the same as being respected as a manager), but intellectual debate is also accepted. Employees may critique the logic of an appraisal without questioning the manager’s role. Formal structure matters much more than in the Netherlands.

In China, Hierarchy dominates. Performance evaluations are expected to be top-down. Questioning feedback openly can be interpreted as disrespect. A Western-style participative Performance Reviews and Appraisal System can therefore create discomfort rather than engagement and motivation.

Individualism versus Collectivism: Who Is Being Evaluated?

Individualism shapes whether performance is seen as a personal or group outcome.

The United States and the Netherlands are highly individualistic. Performance reviews focus on individual goals, personal achievements, and measurable outcomes. Bonuses, promotions, and recognition are tied to personal contribution. Although personal bonuses in the Netherlands are not really a thing.

In France, individual performance matters, but professional identity and role status are equally important. Appraisals often emphasize intellectual contribution, expertise, and alignment with organizational standards (which is linked to predictability).

China, by contrast, is highly collectivist. Individual appraisal can threaten group harmony. Managers often soften feedback or embed it within group evaluations. A direct, individual-focused Performance Reviews and Appraisal System may unintentionally cause loss of face and damage team cohesion.

Goal Orientation: Competition or Balance?

Goal Orientation reflects how much a culture values competition, achievement, and success versus cooperation and quality of life.

The United States scores high on Goal Orientation. Performance reviews are competitive, outcome-driven, and often linked to the ranking of the individual in the organization. Clear differentiation between high and low performers is expected and made visible (e.g., employee of the month).

The Netherlands is one of the most process-oriented (the opposite of Goal Orientation) cultures globally. Here, performance reviews emphasize development, well-being, and balance. Excessive ranking or forced differentiation is often rejected as unhealthy. A highly competitive Performance Reviews and Appraisal System can quickly lose credibility and is absolutely not liked.

France leans somewhat toward Goal Orientation but values intellectual rigor over raw competition. Strong critique is acceptable, even expected, but must be logically justified.

China combines Goal Orientation with Collectivism. Achievement matters, but open competition within teams is often muted. Managers may recognize high performers indirectly to avoid disrupting harmony.

Predictability: How Structured Is the System?

Predictability determines how much structure, formality, and predictability people expect.

The United States and the Netherlands score relatively low. Flexible goals, qualitative feedback, and evolving role definitions are acceptable. Reviews are seen as guidance rather than rigid judgment.

France scores high on Predictability (see table). Employees expect formal criteria, clear frameworks, and documented justification. A vague or overly flexible Performance Reviews and Appraisal System is often perceived as arbitrary or unfair.

China scores low, but expresses this through rules rather than debate (the rules are imposed by the power holder and thus is hierarchy based). Clear expectations and consistent processes matter, even if feedback delivery remains indirect.

Comparative Overview

Why Global Systems Struggle

The recurring mistake organizations make is assuming that standardization equals fairness. In reality, imposing one universal Performance Reviews and Appraisal System often privileges one cultural logic while alienating others. What feels transparent in one country feels disrespectful in another. What feels motivating in one context feels humiliating and demotivating elsewhere.

Effective global organizations do not abandon performance reviews—but they adapt them. They distinguish between global principles (fairness, clarity, development) and local execution. They allow managers to translate expectations into culturally meaningful practices.

Some Final Thoughts

Performance reviews do not fail because employees resist feedback. They fail because culture determines how feedback is given, received, and interpreted. Any organization operating across borders must treat the Performance Reviews and Appraisal System not as a technical HR tool, but as a cultural interface—one that requires deliberate design, not blind standardization.