Search results

This study examines how asking employees to self-assess their performance during the compensation setting process, when they are unaware of their marginal contribution to firm profit, affects employer welfare. Previous research suggests that giving employees a voice in the compensation setting process can positively affect employee performance and firm profit (Jenkins & Lawler, 1981; Roberts, 2003). However, the study proposes that asking employees to assess their own performance as part of the compensation setting process can have unintended consequences that ultimately lead to higher employee compensation demands. This is because asking employees to assess their performance increases their overconfidence in their own performance and their compensation demands. As a result, employers may face the dilemma of whether to meet these higher compensation demands or risk economic losses due to employee retaliation if their demands are not met. Through experimental evidence comparing a control condition without self-assessments and three self-assessment reporting conditions, the study provides evidence that supports the notion that eliciting employee self-assessments as part of the compensation process reduces employer welfare. Data on employee perceptions of performance further support the notion that asking employees to evaluate their performance leads to an inflated perception of their performance. These findings provide a theory-based explanation of why, in practice, many companies disentangle employee performance assessments from the compensation setting process and that companies are well advised in doing so.

The employee-organization relationship (EOR) has increasingly become a focal point for researchers in organizational behavior, human resource management, and industrial relations. Literature on the EOR has developed at both the individual – (e.g. psychological contracts) and the group and organizational-levels of analysis (e.g. employment relationships). Both sets of literatures are reviewed, and we argue for the need to integrate these literatures as a means for improving understanding of the EOR. Mechanisms for integrating these literatures are suggested. A subsequent discussion of contextual effects on the EOR follows in which we suggest that researchers develop models that explicitly incorporate context. We then examine a number of theoretical lenses to explain various attributes of the EOR such as the dynamism and fairness of the exchange, and new ways of understanding the exchange including positive functional relationships and integrative negotiations. The article concludes with a discussion of future research needed on the EOR.

Discrimination against workers because of their family responsibilities can violate federal law, yet scholars know little about the context surrounding perceived family responsibilities discrimination (FRD). This chapter investigates both the types of caregiving responsibilities that put workers at risk of FRD and the organizational contexts that give rise to perceived FRD.

We identify features of FRD which make detecting it particularly difficult and theorize the mechanisms by which caregiving responsibilities and organizational contexts lead to perceived FRD. We draw on data from the 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce for our empirical analysis.

Caregivers who provide both child and eldercare are more likely to perceive FRD than caregivers who provide one type of care, as are people who experience high levels of family-to-work interference and who spend more daily time on childcare. Certain family-friendly and meritocratic organizational contexts are associated with lower perceived FRD.

We measure perceptions, not actual discrimination on the basis of family care responsibilities. Our research cannot pinpoint the factors which intensify or lessen actual discrimination, just perceptions of it.

By pinpointing the characteristics of organizations in which perceived FRD occurs, this chapter shows how organizations can create workplaces in which perceived FRD is less likely.

The objective of the study is to understand the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), employers' organizational commitment to their employees (OCE), employees' perception of the adequacy of budgetary resources (BRs), and firm performance in Malaysian and Chilean firms. A survey of 165 managers finds that EO has a significant positive relationship with performance. Additionally, the perceptions about the adequacy of the BR have a significant positive effect on performance. And in the Chilean subsample, the OCE interacts positively with perceptions of budget resource adequacy to affect the firm performance. The total effect of EO on performance is similar across both countries despite the EO being higher in Malaysia and perceptions of budget resource adequacy being higher in Chile. The study highlights the contribution to the literature on the EO – performance relationship – and emphasizes the importance of providing adequate resources to enhance the psychological safety of employees working in less developed countries.

This chapter assesses how gender and disability status intersect to shape employment and earnings outcomes for working-age adults in the United States.

The research pools five years of data from the 2010–2015 Current Population Survey to compare employment and earnings outcomes for men and women with different types of physical and cognitive disabilities to those who specifically report work-limiting disabilities.

The findings show that people with different types of limitations, including those not specific to work, experienced large disparities in employment and earnings and these outcomes also varied for men and women. The multiplicative effects of gender and disability on labor market outcomes led to a hierarchy of disadvantage where women with cognitive or multiple disabilities experienced the lowest employment rates and earnings levels. However, within groups, disability presented the strongest negative effects for men, which created a smaller gender wage gap among people with disabilities.

This chapter provides quantitative evidence for the multiplicative effects of gender and disability status on employment and earnings. It further extends an intersectional framework by highlighting the gendered aspects of the ways in which different disabilities shape labor market inequalities. Considering multiple intersecting statuses demonstrates how the interaction between disability type and gender produce distinct labor market outcomes.

This paper explores the link between skill and qualification mismatch and labor productivity using cross-country industry data for 19 OECD countries. Utilizing mismatch indicators aggregated from micro-data sourced from the recent OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC), the main results suggest that higher skill and qualification mismatch is associated with lower labor productivity, with over-skilling and under-qualification accounting for most of these impacts. A novel result is that higher skill mismatch is associated with lower labor productivity through a less efficient allocation of resources, presumably because when the share of over-skilled workers is higher, more productive firms find it more difficult to attract skilled labor and gain market shares at the expense of less productive firms. At the same time, a higher share of under-qualified workers is associated with both lower allocative efficiency and within-firm productivity – that is, a lower ratio of high productivity to low productivity firms. While differences in managerial quality can potentially account for the relationship between mismatch and within-firm productivity, the paper offers some preliminary insights into the policy factors that might explain the link between skill mismatch and resource allocation.