Running head: CROSS-CULTURAL BIAS IN EMPLOYEE PROMOTION 1 CROSS-CULTURAL BIAS IN EMPLOYEE PROMOTION 2 Cross-cultural Bias in Employee Promotion Name Institution Cross-cultural Bias in Employee Evaluation and Promotion Evaluation and promotion occupy a critical position in the management of employee affairs. These are the only tools that enable the employer and the employee to improve the productivity in an organization. An effective promotional policy should mainly take into account the performance of the workers and the level of commitment towards organizational goals and objectives (Lee & Csuti, 2009). Additionally, it should accommodate the nature of the workforce by reflecting the demographic components of the workers. In other cases, a company may be guided by affirmative action to ensure equality and representation of all workers at various levels of the business functions. Such an initiative should be done in accordance to the laws on equal employment and professional ethics (Brooks & Dunn, 2011).  Maria’s Case Notwithstanding the presence of these guidelines evaluation and promotion of employees from a diversified culture remains a contentious issue in most organizations. The element of cross-cultural bias may sometimes misguide job evaluators and human resource managers during a promotion exercise. The individuals performing the task may consider factors that are irrelevant to employee performance. In this respect, DeVoe and Iyengar (2004) posit that organizational managers will take account into factors that conform to the popular culture or their own culture in the workplace. The element of ethnocentrism tends to rule during cross-cultural bias. A high performing employee not be promoted because of the eminent inferior views against the worker’s culture (Kurt, & Ford, 1985). Factors such as the working culture of worker, language skills, communication styles, interpersonal interaction, accent, dressing style may sometimes be overemphasized because of the cultural differences between the employees (DeVoe & Iyengar, 2004). In the case that involved Maria and her company the element of cross-cultural bias would take center stage when evaluating the actions taken by the managers of the organization. The party asserted that her managers denied her the opportunity because of her cultural background. Among factors that she cited were her accent and race. However, according to the managers the employee was not promoted because of poor performance, tardiness, frequent absenteeism, and her accent. In the light of the factors presented by the company against Maria, it is evident that there was no case of either structural or individual discrimination practices in the firm. Maria was not promoted on the basis of performance which must take into account the evaluation scores of the employees, capabilities, and skills. The firm is also right to promote ...

1. Running head: CROSS-CULTURAL BIAS IN EMPLOYEE
PROMOTION 1
CROSS-CULTURAL BIAS IN EMPLOYEE PROMOTION
2
Cross-cultural Bias in Employee Promotion
Name
Institution
Cross-cultural Bias in Employee Evaluation and Promotion
Evaluation and promotion occupy a critical position in the
management of employee affairs. These are the only tools that
enable the employer and the employee to improve the
productivity in an organization. An effective promotional policy
should mainly take into account the performance of the workers
and the level of commitment towards organizational goals and
objectives (Lee & Csuti, 2009). Additionally, it should
accommodate the nature of the workforce by reflecting the
demographic components of the workers. In other cases, a
company may be guided by affirmative action to ensure equality
and representation of all workers at various levels of the
business functions. Such an initiative should be done in
accordance to the laws on equal employment and professional
ethics (Brooks & Dunn, 2011).
Maria’s Case
Notwithstanding the presence of these guidelines
evaluation and promotion of employees from a diversified
culture remains a contentious issue in most organizations. The
element of cross-cultural bias may sometimes misguide job
evaluators and human resource managers during a promotion
exercise. The individuals performing the task may consider

2. factors that are irrelevant to employee performance. In this
respect, DeVoe and Iyengar (2004) posit that organizational
managers will take account into factors that conform to the
popular culture or their own culture in the workplace. The
element of ethnocentrism tends to rule during cross-cultural
bias. A high performing employee not be promoted because of
the eminent inferior views against the worker’s culture (Kurt, &
Ford, 1985). Factors such as the working culture of worker,
language skills, communication styles, interpersonal interaction,
accent, dressing style may sometimes be overemphasized
because of the cultural differences between the employees
(DeVoe & Iyengar, 2004).
In the case that involved Maria and her company the
element of cross-cultural bias would take center stage when
evaluating the actions taken by the managers of the
organization. The party asserted that her managers denied her
the opportunity because of her cultural background. Among
factors that she cited were her accent and race. However,
according to the managers the employee was not promoted
because of poor performance, tardiness, frequent absenteeism,
and her accent. In the light of the factors presented by the
company against Maria, it is evident that there was no case of
either structural or individual discrimination practices in the
firm. Maria was not promoted on the basis of performance
which must take into account the evaluation scores of the
employees, capabilities, and skills. The firm is also right to
promote her colleague on the basis of these factors.
The organization was right to expect its workers who
directly interact and communicate with the customers to speak
in a clear and comprehensive accent. As much as Maria may
concentrate on her accent as the basis of discrimination,
communication skills remain vital components of employee
performance considered in every promotion. Maria must also
understand that she works in culturally-diversified environment
and proper communications skills are paramount for effective
interaction with other people.

3. The organization can eliminate this problem by developing a
proper cultural inclusion plan. Such an initiative should identify
and eliminate communication problems that influence cultural
bias. It would be easier for Maria to understand the importance
of good communication skills. The plan would also
communicate the factors under consideration during a
promotional exercise. The other component of the plan would
entail employee training so as to enable the workers meet the
expected promotional criteria.
This research will, therefore, look into subject of cross-cultural
bias in employee evaluation and promotion.
Research Objective: To establish how cultural-bias affect
employee evaluation and promotion
Research Questions
· How does cross-cultural bias affect organizational employee
promotion policies?
· How can organizations eliminate the problem?
References
Brooks, L. J., & Dunn, P. (2011). Business & professional
ethics. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
DeVoe, S. E., & Iyengar, S. S. (2004). Managers’ theories of
subordinates: A cross-cultural examination of manager
perceptions of motivation and appraisal of
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 93(1), 47-61.
Kurt, K., & Ford. K, J. (1985). A Meta-analysis of ratee race
effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1- 7.
Lee, K., & Csuti, N. B. (2009). The Journey Continues:
Ensuring a Cross-Culturally Competent Evaluation. Retrieved
from <https://www.wcasa.org/file_open.php?id=861>