Can you pay employees to innovate? Evidence from the <scp>C</scp>anadian private sector

Curran, Bruce; Walsworth, Scott

doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12036

Cited by 64 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(59 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Amabile et al (1986) explains that employees who are encouraged to achieve a reward will focus attention only on tasks necessary to pursue such an objective. As a result, employees pay less attention to making improvements and are less prone to exchange information to jointly solve problems (Lin 2007;Foss et al 2009;Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe 2011;Curran and Walsworth 2014). Our study contributes to HRM literature, suggesting that extrinsic motivators (such as rewards and incentives) are not sufficient to promote learning behaviors and enhance commitment to improvement initiatives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

The organizational infrastructure of continuous improvement – an empirical analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To pursue constant incremental improvements, firms must develop the dynamic capability of continuous improvement (CI). Research suggests that an organizational infrastructure is necessary to sustain CI capability. Although there have been some attempts to delineate a comprehensive model for CI infrastructure, empirical investigation is still underdeveloped. The present study explores key dimensions of the organizational infrastructure-strategic alignment, teamwork for problem solving, and goals management systems. We analyze their effects on CI capability by using a database of 266 firms. We identify the variables that underlie the organizational infrastructure through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of measurement items, and then we perform a structural equation model linking the infrastructure to CI capability. Our findings suggest that strategic alignment and teamwork for problem solving affect CI capability. This study contributes to the operationalization of the organizational infrastructure and to the understanding of how it affects CI capability in operations management contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

The organizational infrastructure of continuous improvement – an empirical analysis

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a typical concern of studies that use large samples, which have higher amounts of unobserved heterogeneity, relative to smaller ones. For instance, research that examines HRM practices using large data sets report similar statistics (e.g., Booth, Park, & Glomb, , reported R 2 statistics from .05 to .22; Curran & Walsworth, reported R 2 statistics from .06 to .20). However, as Combs () explained, using larger samples brings benefits; for instance, using a larger sample enables us to obtain higher external validity, reduce the chances of committing a Type 2 error, and provide better estimates of the “real world” in the United Kingdom.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Disability status, individual variable pay, and pay satisfaction: Does relational and institutional trust make a difference?

Shantz

Wang

Malik

2017

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although prior research suggests that disabled employees have different needs in the context of some HRM practices, we know little about their reactions to reward systems. We address this gap in the literature by testing a model using the 2011 British Workplace Employee Relations Survey (disabled employees, n = 1,251; nondisabled employees, n = 9,959; workplaces, n = 1,806) and find that disabled employees report lower levels of pay satisfaction than nondisabled employees, and when compensated based on individual performance, the difference in pay satisfaction is larger. We suggest that relational (derived from trust in management) and institutional (derived from firm‐wide policies and HRM practices, both intended to provide equitable treatment to disabled employees) forms of trust play important roles. The results of multilevel analyses show that when trust in management is high, the difference in pay satisfaction under variable pay is reduced. We find just the opposite for employees who work in organizations with a formal disability policy but without supportive HRM practices; the gap in pay satisfaction is exacerbated. However, the combination of the presence of a firm‐wide policy and HRM practices reduced the difference in pay satisfaction. Implications of the findings for theory, future research, and management practice are discussed.

show abstract

“…Individual and Collective PRP were measured using by the presence (0 = no; 1 = yes) of “payment by results, that is, piece rates, provisions (i.e., a form of commission typical of the real estate industry), brokerages, or commissions” for individual PRP, and “variable extra pay linked to the results of the company or establishment (profit sharing scheme)” for collective PRP. The use of dummy variables to capture the presence of different forms of PRP is common in compensation literature (e.g., Curran & Walsworth, ; De Spiegelaere et al, ). Our approach has the advantage to focus on specific forms of individual and collective PRP, whereas most of research has used combined indexes, thus making the overall understanding of the related findings quite unclear.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowding‐out or crowding‐in? Direct voice, performance‐related pay, and organizational innovation in European firms

Torre

Salimi

Giangreco

2019

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on motivation crowding theory (MCT), this article contributes to the human resources management (HRM)‐innovation debate by examining the potential trade‐offs between HRM practices targeted to increase employees' intrinsic motivation, such as direct employee voice (EV), and the presence of extrinsic incentives in the form of individual and collective performance‐related pay (PRP). The results of the analysis on more than 22,000 European establishments show support for the positive relationship between EV and a firm's organizational innovation, and that this relationship is weaker in companies that adopted individual PRP schemes (piece‐rate plans). Moreover, while we found that collective PRP (profit‐sharing) does not moderate the relationship between EV and organizational innovation, a positive and significant moderation effect emerged when the combined presence of individual and collective PRP was considered. By advocating that the coexistence of multiple forms of PRP could overcome the crowding‐out effect of individual PRP on EV, the study contributes to the HRM debate by also calling for a better understanding of the potential contingencies between different HRM practices when innovation is focus of the analysis.

show abstract

Can you pay employees to innovate? Evidence from the Canadian private sector

Cited by 64 publications

References 43 publications

The organizational infrastructure of continuous improvement – an empirical analysis

The organizational infrastructure of continuous improvement – an empirical analysis

Disability status, individual variable pay, and pay satisfaction: Does relational and institutional trust make a difference?

Crowding‐out or crowding‐in? Direct voice, performance‐related pay, and organizational innovation in European firms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About