Search

We contribute to understanding the previously unrecognized consequences of individualized employment arrangements on the relationship between pay and performance. Increases in the application of pay-for-performance (PFP) idiosyncratic deals (PFP i-deals) raise questions about how individualized PFP arrangements affect the performance of peers who do not receive such customized deals. As pay systems become more individualized, understanding the economic ramifications of how PFP i-deals affect peer performance is essential for understanding the total unit effects of implementing PFP i-deals. To examine these peer effects, we explored peer responses to PFP i-deals and identified boundary conditions on broad theoretical assumptions underlying the conclusion that PFP increases unit performance. We tested our predictions by applying multilevel random-coefficient discontinuous growth models to a sample of 451 peers nested in 117 business units of a for-profit health-care organization. Immediately after PFP i-deal implementation in the unit, the performance level of peers was negatively affected. Additionally, peer performance trends after PFP i-deal implementation were lower than they were before the PFP i-deal implementation. Our study also identified contextual factors that influence peer responses to PFP i-deal implementation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Employee referral hiring , an organization's use of current employees' social networks (referrers) to fill job openings with new hires (referred workers), is a popular organization practice. This topic has been studied for decades by scholars, and research remains vibrant across several disciplines. While reviews of recruitment methods and their influence on job seekers and organizations exist, they give minimal attention to employee referrals. This gap is critical because an assessment of the employee referral literature exposes numerous theories, deviations in methodological approaches, and other important nuances. The research developed, and emerging across different disciplines, is also disconnected, often overlooking promising findings from each other. Furthermore, the impact of technology and the changing nature of work requires a renewed attention to the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of the referring phenomenon. Our review integrates the multidisciplinary literature to address important knowledge gaps and confront the underlying complexities of the referral hiring phenomenon. We review 101 relevant referral hiring studies from 86 published and unpublished articles across a variety of disciplines, and, in the process, we develop a model of employee referral hiring in organizations. This model portrays the pathways and contextual variables that describe the referring process (e.g., referrer motivations, the hiring process, and referrer and referred worker outcomes). Last, we advance an agenda for future research on this promising topic. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Studies show that abusive leader behaviors "trickle down" to lower organizational levels, but this research ignores that many abused supervisors do not perpetuate abuse by harming their own subordinates. Drawing on social-cognitive theory and related research, we suggest abused supervisors might defy rather than emulate their managers' abusive behavior. Specifically, we predicted that some abused supervisors-namely, those with strong moral identities-might in effect "change course" by engaging in less abuse or demonstrating ethical leadership with their subordinates to the extent they disidentify with their abusive managers. Across 2 experiments (n = 288 and 462 working adults, respectively) and a field study (n = 500 employees and their supervisors), we show that relations between manager abuse and supervisors' abusive and ethical behaviors were carried by supervisors' disidentification, and that the direct and indirect effects of manager abuse were stronger for supervisors with comparatively higher moral identity levels. We discuss our findings' implications and avenues for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

In this study, we develop and test a model that extends leader-member exchange (LMX) theory to a dual leadership context. Drawing upon relative deprivation theory, we assert that when employees work for 2 leaders, each relationship exists within the context of the other relationship. Thus, the level of alignment or misalignment between the 2 relationships has implications for employees' job satisfaction and voluntary turnover. Employing polynomial regression on time-lagged data gathered from 159 information technology consultants nested in 26 client projects, we found that employee outcomes are affected by the quality of the relationship with both agency and client leaders, such that the degree of alignment between the 2 LMXs explained variance in outcomes beyond that explained by both LMXs. Results also revealed that a lack of alignment in the 2 LMXs led to asymmetric effects on outcomes, such that the relationship with agency leader mattered more than the relationship with one's client leader. Finally, frequency of communication with the agency leader determined the degree to which agency LMX affected job satisfaction in the low client LMX condition., ((c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.)

Given increased interest in whether targets' behaviors at work are related to their victimization, we investigated employees' job performance level as a precipitating factor for being victimized by peers in one's work group. Drawing on rational choice theory and the victim precipitation model, we argue that perpetrators take into consideration the risks of aggressing against particular targets, such that high performers tend to experience covert forms of victimization from peers, whereas low performers tend to experience overt forms of victimization. We further contend that the motivation to punish performance deviants will be higher when performance differentials are salient, such that the effects of job performance on covert and overt victimization will be exacerbated by group performance polarization, yet mitigated when the target has high equity sensitivity (benevolence). Finally, we investigate whether victimization is associated with future performance impairments. Results from data collected at 3 time points from 576 individuals in 62 work groups largely support the proposed model. The findings suggest that job performance is a precipitating factor to covert victimization for high performers and overt victimization for low performers in the workplace with implications for subsequent performance.