Comparing Human Resource Management in Multinational and Local Companies in Hong Kong - Essay Example

Moreover, there is a clear difference in how it is executed. All employees from the American company were divided into different groups, and in order to ensure efficient management of the employees, a manager was assigned to each group. The company also had a data base where each individual's sales performance and feedback from customers was encoded and saved. In these instances, in terms of employee performance, employees within the group were also allowed to put in their opinion of their colleagues.

Using numerical totals from the database, an evaluation on how each person has been performing could easily be established. Moreover, the interesting part of this database is on how customers’ feedback was also accounted for in the overall evaluation of the employees. The fact that the employees formed groups to monitor one another was very much in keeping with the findings of Bjorkman (2003) on Chinese companies’ putting greater emphasis on team work. The Swiss company also showed traces of an Appraisal system in place.

They also went through a performance evaluation process for their employees. They mostly divided their staff into two groups: first, the lower level staff which were general operational staff, and second, the other staff which were usually higher level employees. The lower level staff usually underwent a two-way communication process using the Preference Evaluation (PE) form. Employees would then set objectives at the beginning of the year, with fulfillment of the objectives monitored throughout the year.

By the end of the year, their managers usually evaluated the individuals by assessing whether or not they have achieved their objectives. A performance rating also followed the assessment. Among higher level staff, they also underwent a similar evaluation process, however, the review was called performance cycle, and was usually done through an online tool. These individuals also set objectives at the beginning of the year and were then monitored throughout the year. The difference in these two groups of employees is that towards the end of the year, there was a performance calibration session conducted by the managers on the employees.

Such a session was not carried out on managers. This session consisted of an open forum where the managers discussed employee performance and then agree on a performance rating for each employee. This allowed a more unbiased evaluation of the employees. It also created a chance for cross department discussions and the sharing of opinions among these departments. In contrast, employees from the Hong Kong Company revealed that their company was using a more traditional appraisal system. Managers evaluated employees’ attitude in the workplace, and took into account the number of times each employee was late for work or if their work was done on time.

The Hong Kong company does not have an evaluation system like the other two companies, and the employees’ evaluation is mainly based on their performance and the perception of their managers. The Swiss company’s evaluating system shares some similarities with the American company. They both have a database for the easy evaluation of their employees. They also have groups which help with the evaluation process and which help illuminate the probability of bias. Both companies have traces of HR practices from the East and the