How can such cultural differences influence assessment behavior? The possible effects are manifold. Every form of community has unwritten standards which determine how far an individual is allowed to stand out from the masses. In terms of the appraisal of employees’ performance, a low acceptance level of individuality, a low masculinity index, or a strong tendency to avoidance of uncertainty quite often leads to a homogeneous appraisal which distinguishes only nuances among employees. Another explanation for this is the avoidance of conflicts and disputes, which also differs according to cultural background. Differences in the assessments of employees always contain the inherent risk of conflicts within the company. The results then vary as a consequence of the desire to avoid conflict found in the particular culture. 

Approaches to successful handling of cultural differences

An approach frequently taken in dealing with the problem of differing assessment behavior is the reliance on distribution curves, the so-called forced rankings. This is highly successful with respect to the standardization of appraisals in terms of level and variation. However, it is easy to see that there are some problems associated with using forced rankings as well. Owing to the strict application of distribution curves within defined assessment groups, the results of the individual review depend on the composition of the specific peer group. In other words, the results for an individual employee depend on which of his/her colleagues he/she is “compared” with. “Talent niches” or “goldfish ponds” are left out of the equation and must, just like all areas, bow to the standard distribution. But these circumstances are contradictory to the fairness and transparency being sought by the company-wide performance and potential review. This is why forced rankings are only a part of the solution to the problems described above.

So what must be done to ensure that cultural differences receive due consideration? Obviously, the force of the conditioning with cultural values of a community from early childhood on makes it impossible to push aside the ethnical culture and simply replace it with the corporate culture. The best that can be hoped for is a co-existence or blend of the two value frameworks. Achieving a high level of transparency, fairness, and comparability in spite of these difficulties demands an in-depth understanding of cultural aspects and differences on the part of the acting persons.