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)

Book Review: ‘Pay: Why People Earn What They Earn’

cbrHallock, K. F. (2012). Pay: Why People Earn What They Earn and What You Can Do Now to Make More.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. pp. 240

Read the review by Frank L. Giancola, published in Compensation Benefits Review’s November/December 2012 issue:

An intriguing new book on employee compensation was published in September of 2012 that merits our attention. The title of the book is Pay: Why People Earn What They Earn and What You Can Do Now to Make More. Its author is Kevin Hallock, a labor economist at Cornell University. The objective of the book is to explain to a general audience how their pay is determined, based primarily on lessons from labor economics and human resources management.

I do not know of another book that attempts to do this with such brevity and focus—226 pages. Textbooks on employee compensation achieve the same goal, but they are considerably longer and cover more topics. For example, one popular text, Compensation by George Milkovich, Jerry Newman and Barry Gerhart, is 690 pages in length. Because of the length of textbooks and their focus on educating professionals, the average person may not develop a clear idea of how their pay is determined even if they have the will and patience to read a textbook.

Click here to continue reading, and follow this link to receive e-alerts from CBR featuring up-to-date analyses and information on salary and wage trends, labor markets, pay plans, incentive compensation, legal compliance, retirement programs, and health care benefits.

Are Universities Creating Millennial Narcissistic Employees?

James W. Westerman, Jacqueline Z. Bergman, Shawn M. Bergman and Joseph P. Daly, all of Appalachian State University, published “Are Universities Creating Millennial Narcissistic Employees? An Empirical Examination of Narcissism in Business Students and Its Implications,” in the May 2011 issue of the Journal of Management Education. Professor Westerman and Dr. Daly kindly provided the following responses on the article.

Who is the target audience for this article?

This article was targeted toward business instructors and business school administrators at the undergraduate and graduate levels – particularly instructors of management.  We also believe that there are implications from this research for business school career services and career development professionals.

Were there findings that were surprising to you?

One of our biggest surprises was a non-finding, that narcissism was not associated with better classroom performance among students.  We had thought that, since business courses are a short-term instructional setting and narcissists have been shown to excel in short-term learning settings, that they would outperform their non-narcissistic counterparts in that context.  The fact that the hypothesis was not supported by the data was a heartening development – it suggested that business professors in our sample are not cutting any slack or catering to their narcissistic students.  I think the other big surprise was the enhanced salary and career opportunities anticipated by narcissists, which were unrelated to their academic performance.  It seems interesting that narcissists expect to prosper in the business world.  

How do you see this study influencing future practice?

We see this study as influencing future management educators, raising their awareness of narcissism and its effects in the classroom.  In the article, we suggest some interventions that educators can try.  A more extensive discussion of corrective actions that includes administrative interventions is presented in our 2010 article in Academy of Management Learning & Education.

How does this study fit into your body of work/line of research?

Our previous work on narcissism in the business classroom extrapolated from previous research in other disciplines that narcissism was likely to be an increasingly difficult problem in management education.  This study was the first to test that proposition with regard to preparing students for managerial positions.

 How did your paper change during the review process?

One issue that kept coming up among reviewers was, given that our young professors are increasingly coming from Generation Y, what effect would that have on one’s teaching style?  We did measure narcissism levels among the instructors of our sample, but there were not enough observations to draw any meaningful conclusions. 

 What, if anything, would you do differently if you could go back and do this study again?

We would like to replicate this study, only with a Chinese sample to compare to our existing American sample.  China is a land of contrasts.  One the one hand, we would expect narcissism to be lower among the Chinese because their culture is a collectivistic one, which would mitigate against the self-absorption that is a hallmark among narcissists.  However, on the other hand, Chinese students in Generation Y are overwhelmingly from one child families.  Many of their countrymen refer to them as “little emperors” because their parents dote on them so much.  Parental doting is thought to be a root cause of narcissism.

Bookmark and Share