Read the November 2016 Issue of Journal of Management!

3340359442_b93f0f9aa9_o-1The November 2016 issue of Journal of Management is now available online, and can be accessed for the next 30 days! The November issue covers a variety of topics, including articles on organizational transparency, shared leadership-team performance relations, and the effects of autonomy on team performance.

Authors Anthony J. Nyberg, Jenna R. Pieper, and Charlie O. Trevor contributed the article “Pay-for-Performance’s Effect on Future Employee Performance: Integrating Psychological and Economic Principles Toward a Contingency Perspective,” which suggests that bonus pay may have a stronger effect on future performance than merit pay, among other findings about pay-for-performance. The abstract for the paper:

Although pay-for-performance’s potential effect on employee performance is a compelling issue, understanding this dynamic has been constrained by narrow approaches to pay-for-performance conceptualization, measurement, and surrounding conditions. In response, we take a more nuanced perspective by integrating fundamental principles of economics and psychology to identify and incorporate employee characteristics, job characteristics, pay system Current Issue Covercharacteristics, and pay system experience into a contingency model of the pay-for-performance–future performance relationship. We test the role that these four key contextual factors play in pay-for-performance effectiveness using 11,939 employees over a 5-year period. We find that merit and bonus pay, as well as their multiyear trends, are positively associated with future employee performance. Furthermore, our findings indicate that, contrary to what traditional economic perspectives would predict, bonus pay may have a stronger effect on future performance than merit pay. Our results also support a contingency approach to pay-for-performance’s impact on future employee performance, as we find that merit pay and bonus pay can substitute for each other and that the strength of pay-for-performance’s effect is a function of employee tenure, the pay-for-performance trend over time, and job type (presumably due to differences in the measurability of employee performance across jobs).

Another article from the issue, entitled “Social Media for Selection? Validity and Adverse Impact Potential of a Facebook-Based Assessment” from authors Chad H. Van Iddekinge, Stephen E. Lanivich, Philip L. Roth, and Elliott Junco delves into the hazards that arise when recruiters use social media platforms like Facebook to screen job applicants. The abstract for the paper:

Recent reports suggest that an increasing number of organizations are using information from social media platforms such as Facebook.com to screen job applicants. Unfortunately, empirical research concerning the potential implications of this practice is extremely limited. We address the use of social media for selection by examining how recruiter ratings of Facebook profiles fare with respect to two important criteria on which selection procedures are evaluated: criterion-related validity and subgroup differences (which can lead to adverse impact). We captured Facebook profiles of college students who were applying for full-time jobs, and recruiters from various organizations reviewed the profiles and provided evaluations. We then followed up with applicants in their new jobs. Recruiter ratings of applicants’ Facebook information were unrelated to supervisor ratings of job performance (rs = −.13 to –.04), turnover intentions (rs = −.05 to .00), and actual turnover (rs = −.01 to .01). In addition, Facebook ratings did not contribute to the prediction of these criteria beyond more traditional predictors, including cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and personality. Furthermore, there was evidence of subgroup difference in Facebook ratings that tended to favor female and White applicants. The overall results suggest that organizations should be very cautious about using social media information such as Facebook to assess job applicants.

You can read these articles and more from the November 2016 issue of Journal of Management, which is free for the next 30 days, by clicking here to view the issue’s table of contents! Want to stay current on all of the latest research published by Journal of Management? Click here to sign up for e-alerts to receive notifications for new issues and Online First articles!

*City image attributed to Mark Goebel (CC)

Top Five: Pay and Performance

Do monetary rewards increase productivity? Are pay-for-performance plans effective and if so, which ones work best? Find out these answers and more by reading the current top five most-read articles from Compensation & Benefits Review. These papers are free to access through July 12 using the links below. Please share and enjoy!

Edward E. Lawler III, George S. Benson, and Michael McDermott
What Makes Performance Appraisals Effective?
July/August 2012

CBR_42_1_72ppiRGB_150pixWAndré de Waal
Bonuses Don’t Matter . . . in a High-Performance Organization
May/June 2012

Sanghee Park and Michael C. Sturman
How and What You Pay Matters: The Relative Effectiveness of Merit Pay, Bonuses and Long-Term Incentives on Future Job Performance
March/April 2012

Daniel L. Morrell
Employee Perceptions and the Motivation of Nonmonetary Incentives
September/October 2011

Stephen Condrey, Rex Facer II, Jared Llorens, Andrew G. Biggs, Jason Richwine, and Michael Filler
The Great Government Pay Debate
July/August 2012

Do you have a paper to publish on compensation and benefits issues? Compensation & Benefits Review is now seeking submissions on executive pay, health care/retirement benefits, high performance work practices, and many more topics. Click here for details and instructions on submitting your paper for publication in the journal.

Why Performance Appraisals Matter

They may be a pain for managers to write, but performance appraisals are not a waste of time. Find out what makes them effective and how to do them properly in a new article from Compensation & Benefits Review, published in the July/August 2012 issue by Edward E. Lawler III of the University of Southern California, George S. Benson of the University of Texas at Arlington, and Michael McDermott of McDermott Sitzman & Associates, PC:

Performance appraisals are often criticized and poorly done. However, they are not going away and should not go away. They are needed to effectively manage an organization’s talent. Our research suggests that performance management systems can be effective if they are designed and executed correctly. Performance management systems are effective when they are based on goals that are jointly set and are driven by an organization’s business strategy. The use of competency models that are based on cbrbusiness strategy is strongly associated with organizational effectiveness.
When they drive salary increases and bonuses, they are executed better. Often absent but critical to the success of performance management systems is senior management leadership and ownership; much less important is ownership by human resources. Additional keys to effectiveness are training managers to do appraisals, holding them accountable for how well they do appraisals and using measures of how results are achieved.

Click here to read “What Makes Performance Appraisals Effective?” in Compensation & Benefits Review, and get up-to-date analyses and information on salary and wage trends, labor markets, pay plans, and more by signing up for e-alerts from the journal.