Play for Pay: Effects of Inequity in a Pay-for-Performance Context

Harder, Joseph

doi:10.2307/2393227

Cited by 140 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11. For professional baseball teams, see Bloom (1999), DeBrock et al (2001), Depken (2000), Harder (1992) or Richards and Guell (1998). For soccer and hockey teams, see respectively Lehmann and Wacker (2000) and Gomez (2002).…”

Section: Previous Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra‐Firm Wage Dispersion and Firm Performance: Evidence from Linked Employer‐Employee Data

Lallemand¹,

Plasman²,

Rycx³

2004

Kyklos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article analyse la relation entre la dispersion salariale intra-firme et la performance au sein de grandes entreprises belges à partir de données appareillées employeur-employé. Sur base de la méthodologie de Winter-Ebmer et Zweimüller (1999), nous trouvons une relation positive et significative entre la dispersion salariale au sein des entreprises et les profits par tête. Ce résultat est obtenu en contrôlant pour les caractéristiques des travailleurs et des entreprises ainsi qu'en abordant le problème potentiel de la simultanéité. Nos estimations indiquent également que l'intensité de la relation est plus forte pour les ouvriers ainsi qu'au sein des entreprises avec un degréélevé de monitoring. Ces résultats correspondent davantage à la théorie des 'tournois' qu'aux modèles de 'coopération'. Copyright WWZ and Helbing & Lichtenhahn Verlag AG 2004.

show abstract

Section: Previous Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra‐Firm Wage Dispersion and Firm Performance: Evidence from Linked Employer‐Employee Data

Lallemand¹,

Plasman²,

Rycx³

2004

Kyklos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, sports studies have provided insight on wide range of organizational topics including equity theory (Harder, 1992), sunk costs (Staw & Hoang, 1995), leadership (Day, Sin, & Chen, 2004;Pfeffer & Davis-Blake, 1986), organizational status (Washington & Zajac, 2005), and risktaking (Bothner et al, 2007). In our case, NCAA basketball involves long-standing competitors with measurable interaction histories, relative characteristics, and organizational performance, thus satisfying the key prerequisites for studying rivalry.…”

Section: Empirical Setting: Ncaa Basketballmentioning

confidence: 93%

The Psychology of Rivalry: A Relationally Dependent Analysis of Competition

Kilduff

Elfenbein

Staw

2010

AMJ

443

430

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the psychological phenomenon of rivalry, and propose a view of competition as inherently relational, thus extending the literatures on competition between individuals, groups, and firms. Specifically, we argue that the relationships between competitors -as captured by their proximity, relative attributes and prior competitive interactions -can influence the subjective intensity of rivalry between them, which in turn can affect their competitive behavior. Initial tests of these ideas within NCAA basketball indicate that (1) dyadic relationships between teams are highly influential in determining perceptions of rivalry (2) similarity between teams and their histories of prior interactions are systematically predictive of rivalry and (3) rivalry may affect the motivation and performance of team members. These findings suggest significant implications for both the management of employees and the competitive strategies taken by organizations. Airways after the latter admitted to having launched a "dirty tricks" campaign against its rival, which included calling Virgin's customers and lying to them about flight cancellations in addition to circulating rumors that Virgin CEO Richard Branson was infected with HIV (Branson, 1998). In a slightly less scandalous example, Boston Scientific recently overpaid for its acquisition of Guidant -later referred to as "arguably the second-worst" acquisition ever -in large part because it was bidding against rival Johnson & Johnson (Malhotra, Ku, & Murnighan, 2008;Tully, 2006).It is evident from these examples that rivalry can be a powerful psychological phenomenon with substantial behavioral consequences. To date, however, the psychology of rivalry has received little attention from researchers, which is symptomatic of a broader lack of study on the relationships between competitors. We attempt to fill this gap by presenting a theory of rivalry as a subjective relationship between competitors, and by investigating its antecedents and consequences. In doing so, we draw upon the literatures on competition between individuals, groups, and organizations. After outlining our theoretical model, we conduct a first-test of our hypotheses within a setting known to be rife with rivalry: NCAA basketball. BACKGROUND AND THEORY DEVELOPMENT

show abstract

“…Job satisfaction has been shown to be associated with absenteeism (Leicht & Shapelak, 1994); labour turnover (Crampton & Wagner, 1994) and productivity (Harder, 1992). Second, income comparisons are important for the functioning of the labour market and public policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%