When Does Pay for Performance Motivate Employee Helping Behavior? The Contextual Influence of Performance Subjectivity

He, Wei; Li, Shao-Long; Feng, Jie; Zhang, Guanglei; Sturman, Michael C.

doi:10.5465/amj.2018.1408

Cited by 36 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The indirect relationship between PFIP and employee creativity via intrinsic motivation demonstrated in our research is similar to a recent finding that PFIP can motivate employees' extra-role helping behaviors when performance is subjectively evaluated (He et al, 2021). Whereas He et al (2021) offered a heuristic processing explanation for this effect of PFIP, our research provides a self-determination lens that underscores the fit between pay systems and individual differences. It is worth noting that this intrinsic motivation mechanism functions when extrinsic motivation is (Study 2) or is not (Study 1) controlled as a parallel mediator in the relationship between PFIP and creativity.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Following prior research on PFIP (He, Li, Feng, Zhang, & Sturman, 2021;Zhang et al, 2015), we controlled for employees' actual pay level as measured by the employees' estimates of their monthly income; the intervals ranged from "1 = less than 4000 yuan" to "6 = more than 20000 yuan" because organizations are likely to provide stronger incentive intensity (i.e., high PFIP) to higher-paid employees. Finally, given the dominant role of extrinsic motivation in explaining the incentive effect of PFIP (Gerhart & Fang, 2014), we controlled for employee extrinsic motivation as a parallel mediator along with intrinsic motivation.…”

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, one of our findings is the effect of PFIP on employee creativity. However, we did not collect data on employee performance evaluation criteria, and thus we could not directly identify the context of performance evaluation, which is found to be salient in affecting the influences of PFIP on employee behaviors (He et al, 2021). Although we sought to address this issue by recruiting employees with different jobs in two field studies, future research should consider more performance evaluation dimensions, such as evaluating individual or collective performance and routine or creative performance, using subjective or objective measures, and considering the timing and frequency of evaluation, when investigating the incentive effect of PFP.…”

Section: Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does pay for individual performance truly undermine employee creativity? The different moderating roles of vertical and horizontal collectivist orientations

Zhang

Long

et al. 2021

Human Resource Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extant literature has generated inconclusive findings concerning the effect of pay for individual performance (PFIP) on creativity. Supplementing self-determination theory with compensation-activation theory, we theorized and tested the moderating roles of individual cultural values of vertical and horizontal collectivist orientations on the relationship between PFIP and employee creativity as mediated by intrinsic motivation. The empirical results of two field studies provided convergent support for the intrinsic motivation mechanism underlying the positive relationship between PFIP and employee creativity among individuals with high vertical (but not horizontal) collectivist orientations. These findings highlight the importance of considering individual differences in cultural values in understanding how extrinsic rewards affect creativity.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Control Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does pay for individual performance truly undermine employee creativity? The different moderating roles of vertical and horizontal collectivist orientations

Zhang

Long

et al. 2021

Human Resource Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Namely, when managers have discretion, such as when pay decisions are based on subjective evaluations or rationale, they have the ability to manipulate, consciously or unconsciously, both the award and the explanation to justify the award (Castilla, 2008; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Heilman, 2012). In turn, organizations are put in a quandary: Many jobs require some degree of subjective evaluation (e.g., not all aspects of jobs can be clearly quantified; He, Li, Feng, Zhang, & Sturman, 2020), but even well-designed evaluation procedures are subject to biases (Chan & Anteby, 2016; Cortina, 2008).…”

Section: Gender Bias and Pay Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The gender equity gap: A multistudy investigation of within-job inequality in equity-based awards.

Klein¹,

Hill²,

Hammond³

et al. 2021

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laws in many countries mandate paying men and women equally when in similar jobs. Such laws, coupled with considerable organizational efforts, lead some scholars to contend that within-job pay inequality is no longer a source of the gender pay gap. We argue important differences in a widely used form of pay heretofore overlooked in existing studies—equity-based awards (i.e., pay where the value is tied to the employing organization’s stock, such as stock and stock options)—may cause underestimation of gender-based within-job pay inequality. Specifically, we theorize that because of differences in both why and how equity-based awards are distributed to employees compared to other forms of pay, a gender gap will exist in equity-based awards, with biased perceptions of retention driving the gap. Using a multimethod study with novel data from two technology organizations, archival data from publicly traded firms, and experimental data, we find consistent support for our hypotheses. Taken together, our results suggest that using equity-based awards as a means to retain employees, and the rationale and processes associated with distributing such pay, can result in gender-based within-job inequality. Thus, our study sheds light on a previously overlooked form of inequality in the workplace while offering implications for both theory and practice.

show abstract

“…The investigated practices cover two of the three components that Brickley, Smith, and Zimmerman (2015) consider the organizational architecture, namely: the performance evaluation (objective and subjective) and the incentive system. Organizations adopt monitoring mechanisms such as objective and subjective performance evaluation and the system of individual and collective rewards, financial and non-financial, which aim to influence decision-making (He et al, 2020). In addition to influencing behavior, the rewards system can facilitate decisions and choices that affect the organization's performance by focusing on attention and improving knowledge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the interdependence between gainsharing and performance evaluation in a credit union,

Silva

Mucci

et al. 2021

Rev. contab. finanç.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to investigate the interdependence between gainsharing and performance evaluation (objective and subjective) in a credit union. There is a recent debate on the interdependence between management control practices, which emerges from the discussion of control packages or systems. This study delves into this discussion by investigating the complementarity between gainsharing (group incentive modality) and performance evaluation in a credit union context, given the need for qualitative empirical studies on this phenomenon. This study is considered relevant because the joint use of management control practices can allow organizations to effectively mitigate control problems such as lack of direction, motivation, and competence. This research promotes insights into management control practices’ operation - given the discussion of complementarity between gainsharing, which is not a prevalent incentive system in most organizations - and objective and subjective performance evaluation. The methodology consists of a qualitative field study in a credit union using data collection, interviews, and access to documents analyzed using an interpretive approach. This research presents evidence on the phenomenon of interdependence between management control practices, adding to the literature by addressing different forms of complementarity between a group incentive system in the form of gainsharing and performance evaluation. It became evident that gainsharing reinforces the objective performance evaluation process by mitigating motivation and direction problems, while the subjective performance evaluation compensates the objective performance evaluation by shifting the focus of the evaluation to the individual's skills.

show abstract

When Does Pay for Performance Motivate Employee Helping Behavior? The Contextual Influence of Performance Subjectivity

Cited by 36 publications

References 97 publications

Does pay for individual performance truly undermine employee creativity? The different moderating roles of vertical and horizontal collectivist orientations

Does pay for individual performance truly undermine employee creativity? The different moderating roles of vertical and horizontal collectivist orientations

The gender equity gap: A multistudy investigation of within-job inequality in equity-based awards.

Exploring the interdependence between gainsharing and performance evaluation in a credit union,

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About