Search results

The authors comment on the paper by Aguinis et al. (2018). The authors believe that their hypotheses probably are true, but their methodology is flawed and their data do not support their conclusions.

The authors review and comment on the paper by Aguinis et al. (2018).

The data do not adequately demonstrate a power law distribution for chief executive officer’s (CEO) performance because the analysis confounded external conditions affecting performance, and the authors use inappropriate dependent variables. The analysis does not demonstrate a power law distribution for CEO pay because the analysis does not take into account changes in pay level and mix over time. The analysis does not show a lack of overlap between the two distributions because it does not take into account the way that the CEOs are paid for performance and because it uses CEO pay averaged over CEO tenure.

A more convincing analysis of the authors’ hypothesis would require the use of total shareholder return (TSR) as the dependent variable for organizational performance and would require a number of much more specific controls.

The authors call for greater use of power law thinking by practitioners in setting CEO pay. Their analysis indicates that practitioners already think in power law terms and allocate CEO pay accordingly. Moreover, power law theory and findings could be misused as an excuse for paying average CEOs much more than they are already paid.

The authors add another perspective on CEO pay.

The authors’ perspective is informed both by research and by consulting experience on CEO pay projects.

Comentamos el trabajo de Aguinis et al. (2018). Creemos que sus hipótesis son probablemente ciertas, pero su metodología presenta deficiencias y sus datos no apoyan sus conclusiones.

Revisamos y comentamos el trabajo de Aguinis y otros (en prensa).

Los datos no demuestran adecuadamente la existencia de una distribución ley de potencia (power-law) porque sus análisis no consideran las condiciones externas que afectan al resultado de la empresa y los autores hacen un uso inapropiado de las variables dependientes. Los análisis no demuestran que la retribución de los CEO sigua una distribución de ley de potencia porque no toman en consideración cambios en el nivel o composición de la retribución en el tiempo. Los análisis no muestran una falta de superposición entre las dos distribuciones porque no toman en cuenta la forma en la que los CEO son retribuidos por los resultados y porque utilizan la retribución media calculada sobre la antigüedad del CEO.

Un análisis más convincente de las hipótesis planteadas requiere el uso del rendimiento total de los accionistas como variable de resultados organizativos y un número mucho más específico de variables de control.

Los autores animan a los profesionales a pensar más en términos de una distribución de ley de potencia a la hora de fijar la retribución del CEO. Sus análisis indican que los profesionales ya piensan en términos de ésta distribución y asignan las retribuciones de manera acorde a ella. Es más, los resultados derivaos de la teoría de la ley de potencia pueden utilizarse erróneamente como una excusa para pagar menos al CEO medio.

Añadimos otra perspectiva sobre el pago a los CEO.

Nuestra perspectiva viene avalada por nuestra investigación y experiencia de consultoría en proyectos de retribución a CEOs.

Discutimos o trabalho de Aguinis et al. (2018). Acreditamos que as suas hipóteses são provavelmente verdadeiras, mas a sua metodologia apresenta deficiências e os dados apresentados não suportam as conclusões.

Analisamos e comentamos o trabalho de Aguinis et al. (2018).

Os dados não demonstram adequadamente a existência de uma distribuição de poder-lei porque suas análises não consideram as condições externas que afetam o resultado da empresa e os autores fazem uso impróprio das variáveis dependentes. As análises não mostram que as recompensas dos CEOs seguem uma distribuição da lei do poder porque não tomam em consideração as mudanças no nível ou na composição da remuneração sobre o tempo. As análises não mostram falta de sobreposição entre as duas distribuições, porque não têm em conta a forma como os CEOs são pagos pelos resultados e porque utilizam a retribuição média calculada sobre a antiguidade do CEO.

Uma análise mais convincente da hipótese proposta requer o uso do desempenho total dos acionistas como uma variável de resultados organizacionais e um número muito mais específico de variáveis de controle.

Os autores incentivam os profissionais a pensar mais em termos de uma distribuição da lei de potência quando se define o salário do CEO. Suas análises indicam que os profissionais já pensam em termos dessa distribuição e distribuem as recompensas de forma proporcional a ela. Além do mais, os resultados derivados da teoria da lei de poder podem ser erroneamente usados como uma desculpa para pagar menos para o CEO médio.

Agregamos uma outra perspectiva no pagamento ao CEO.

Nossa perspectiva é apoiada pelo nosso pesquisa e experiência de consultoria em projetos de remuneração para CEOs.

Employee involvement (EI) is a major part of high-performance work systems (HPWS) that have successfully transformed a large number of organizations and have become standard practice in many new organizations. Despite the proven benefits of EI, however, it is still not as widely utilized as it could be even when accounting for industry and organization differences in its applicability. We suggest that EI implementation is limited in part by the change management challenges it presents. We review the recent research on EI and HPWS, and suggest ways in which change research and theory can inform our understanding of why EI practices have fallen short of their potential and how they can be effectively implemented.

Conducting relevant research is a cornerstone of good academic practice. However, considering academics and practitioners’ divergent paradigms and social systems, it is challenging to undertake impactful research. Indeed, the research–practice gap remains an essential issue in human resource management research. There have been several calls for translating research for dissemination, making it more societally relevant, and beginning conversations and activities that move beyond the confines of the academic context. In fact, research on talent management (TM) has been accused of lagging in offering organizations vision and direction. Understanding the perceived causes and potential solutions for relevant problems is a real need to successfully narrow the TM research–practice gap. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to offer an in-depth discussion on the research–practice gap in TM. To do so, we first identify the critical dimensions of research relevance that will help us to ground our discussion regarding the applicability of current academic TM research. By doing this, we seek to understand better what is happening with TM research, which should then help provide insights into how its practical impact can be improved.

Managerial behavior has typically not been the lead variable in organizational change efforts. Change efforts have assumed that structure, strategy and work design changes will lead to new supervisory behaviors. The kinds of behaviors that are required of a manager in a high involvement organization are examined. It is suggested that managerial behavior is the primary change that is required to make a transition to a high involvement culture, and that it might be a suitable lead variable in the change sequence.

Ed Lawler suggests HR follows the lead set by marketing and finance by dividing its strategic and administrative work into separate functions.

The purpose of this article is to study the effect of employee involvement (EI) practices on quality comprehensively.

This paper views the EI domain as sets of related practices interacting within a hierarchy. Using survey data, the paper tests a model of higher order practices building on a foundation of lower order practices to affect quality.

The results support a hierarchical conceptualisation of EI practices. Some practices are found to be more effective than others, yet even the less effective EI practices serve a supportive purpose.

The model was analyzed from a predictive perspective, using a relatively small sample. Rather than simply identifying some EI practices as more effective than others, it is important to view the practices as being interrelated.

Cherry‐picking only the most effective EI practices may not work. Managers must first install a foundation of less effective practices.

EI is recognised as an important enabler of quality management initiatives. Yet, much of this support is based on normative and untested prescriptions. This paper provides such a test. The paper models the entire EI domain, as sets of related practices rather than a hodgepodge of sporadic individual practices. Further, the paper presents a unique conceptualisation of an EI hierarchy.

The increasing interest in economic, social, and ecological sustainability has important implications for the traditional views on organization effectiveness, organization design, and organization development. Managers need to design organizations to achieve a “triple bottom line.” A review of the organization effectiveness literature suggests that no single model seems to provide the necessary guidance, and there is a clear need for creation, revision, and integration. Organization effectiveness criteria in the future require a clearer modeling of the multistakeholder demands so that organization designers can specify appropriate strategies, structures, systems, and processes as well as the changes necessary to develop them. We propose an integration called “responsible progress” and suggest that it represents an important new stream of organization development theory. The relationships between this new criterion of organization effectiveness and the design features necessary to pursue them must be tested.

The application of TQM practices has rapidly increased in US organizations over the past six years, particularly in organizations facing severe competitive pressures. A survey of the 1,000 largest companies shows that these practices fall into two main categories: core practices and production‐oriented practices. Companies perceive benefit in three areas: improvement of work performance, company competitiveness and profitability, and employee outcomes. Service organizations experience these benefits primarily from implementing core practices more extensively. Competitiveness and profitability in manufacturing organizations are positively affected by the implementation of the production‐oriented practices. Analysis of financial outcomes suggests that core practices are positively related to market share for manufacturing companies. Production‐oriented practices are positively related to return on equity and collaboration with suppliers in quality efforts is positively related to total factor productivity index for all companies.

A rubber‐stamp board serves everyone—especially the CEO—poorly.