75
Understanding Organizational Practice Adoption …
Performance appraisal
The process of identifying and developing human performance in organizations has
broadened considerably in recent years to incorporate the views of multiple stakeholders
in a 360-degree account of employee competence (e.g., Van Gennip et al.
2010
). Inher
-
ent to this approach is that appraisers include one’s peers, one’s subordinates (termed
as ‘reverse appraisal’) and even oneself. At
the cross-national level, however, many
researchers have questioned the applicability of such feedback (Chiang and Birtch
2010
)
where the notion of subordinates appraising superiors runs counter to the elevated hierar
-
chical distance between organizational ranks (Mead and Andrews
2009
).
In Thailand, given the paternalistic nature of indigenous superior-subordinate rela
-
tionships employees have always strongly avoided direct negative performance feed
-
back (e.g., Komin
1990b
; siengthai and Bechter
2004
; Yukongdi
2010
). As observed by
Andrews and Krairith “…in Thai culture there is no such thing as challenging the ideas or
giving constructive arguments to superiors…(so that) bosses do not lose face in front of
others…” (
2009
, p. 281). Even when the practice is mandated (as in an MNE subsidiary)
it engenders typically nothing more than a ritual performed
without meaning or conse-
quence (Andrews et al.
2003
).
Preliminary interviews uncovered the widespread belief among Cesaritt senior manag
-
ers that 360-degree feedback was being completed largely as a meaningless ceremony
rather than a source of valued information. The idea of evaluating one’s superior was
viewed as a form of undue assertiveness (against a backdrop of deference and loyalty).
across our informant sample
kreng jai
was stated as the prime feeling to describe the
ensuing discomfort, especially where there was genuine dissatisfaction with one’s boss.
As one HR officer expressed it: “…whatever the reason, I don’t like to do like this…it’s
not comfortable for Thai to write thing about the boss, we never do like this ….but ok if I
say the good thing and it comes from inside it is better than to say I have a bad feeling…
about writing the bad thing it’s impossible I think for Thais, even if people are not happy
with the boss about many things nobody is going to write about this….”
Kreng jai
was also proffered as the main factor inhibiting the appraisal of peers and
subordinates, as illustrated in two anecdotes. The first concerns the appraisal by an HR
manager of a peer, where
kreng jai
played a significant role in the content (especially the
wording) of the appraisal given. According to the appraisor concerned “…I don’t want to
say…(that) she (is) not worth her position, she cannot speak English, she cannot use com
-
puter, so her job is basically like admin function….because I feel
kreng jai
say like that
because she here longer than me, she older than me I must to respect her…so I say she
a valuable member of the team…”. As Yukongdi (
2010
) notes, there is a Thai “cultural
expectation” that the younger supervisor would show respect to the older subordinate.
Kreng jai
in this case acts both to express a deeply-held value (respect for seniority) and
to provide the link between a societal level norm and an individual-level behavior.
The second illustration concerns the appraisal of an administrative junior where the
manager in question felt
kreng jai
to write the ‘truth’ about her incompetence but would
go through the motions of providing a satisfactory review nonetheless. “Her father was
work here before”, he explained. “He was my boss for long time but then he have acci
-
76
T. G. Andrews and N. Chompusri
dent, so now cannot walk, cannot speak, just stay home. So for _____ (his daughter) I feel
kreng jai
to write much about negative thing….I
kreng jai
her father.”
in
these cases
kreng jai
adds its distinctive influence to the usual behaviors associated
with a high-power distance, relations-based work environment and provides a specific,
more detailed construct to help bridge broad, universalist cultural descriptions with the
indigenous individual actions that ensue. As outlined in Table
4
, when appraising
superi-
ors
and peers, respondent
kreng jai
acted to reinforce the influence of prior comparative
constructs. However, when appraising subordinates
kreng jai
acted once again in exclu-
sivity, i.e., without support from the major etic dimensions.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
