Search results

In this paper, we present and apply a new framework – the Poles of Production for Producers/Poles of Production for Users (PFP/PFU) model – to empirically study how one particular group of academic scientists has responded to neoliberal changes in science policy and funding in Canada. The data we use are from a qualitative case study of 20 basic health scientists affiliated with a research-intensive university in a large Canadian city. We use the PFP/PFU model to explore the symbolic strategies (the vision of scientific quality) and practical strategies (the acquisition of funding and production of knowledge outputs) scientists adopt to maintain or advance their own position of power in the scientific field. We also compare similarities and differences among scientists trained before and after the rise of neoliberal policy. The PFP/PFU model allows us to see how these individual strategies cumulatively contribute to the construction of dominant and alternate modes of knowledge production. We argue that the alignments and misalignments between quality vision and practice that scientists in this study experienced reflect the symbolic struggles that are occurring among scientists, and between the scientific and political field, over two competing logics and reward systems (PFP/PFU).

We demonstrate in a laboratory experiment that the effectiveness of performance-contingent incentives is inversely related to risk-aversion levels. For about 16.5% of participants, performance fails to improve under performance-pay, and the probability of such failure increases with risk-aversion. This phenomenon works in part through the reduced effort level of more risk-averse individuals when effort level is positively correlated with risk exposure. It is also associated with higher self-reported levels of stress by more risk-averse people working under performance-contingent pay. We find no evidence of such stress causing decrements in the quality of effort affecting performance after controlling for effort level. However, controlling for effort, more risk-averse participants perform better under a fixed salary, leaving less room for improvement under performance-pay.

Prior studies suggest that, in an industry in which several public firms operate (i.e. greater public firm presence), uncertainty about business operations within the industry is reduced due to greater analyst coverage and quality of information disclosure. In this study, the authors examine how UK private firms respond to investment opportunities in fixed intangible assets (FIAs) in an environment characterised by greater public firm presence (PFP).

Using data from 61,278 (1,358) private (public) UK firms operating in ten sectors spanning from 2006 to 2016, the authors conduct this analysis by using panel econometric techniques.

The authors observe that private firms are more responsive to their FIA investment opportunities when they operate in industries with more PFP. Also, the authors find that firms in industries with better information quality use more debt and have longer debt maturity security but less internal cash flow. Overall, the findings indicate that PFP generates positive externalities for private firms by lessening industry uncertainty and enhancing more efficient FIA investment. The results are robust to endogeneity concerns.

A key limitation of the study is that it focuses on a single country (the UK) and therefore there is a likelihood that the results found are specific to this setting but not others, particularly developing and emerging economies. Thus, future studies could explore these ideas from the viewpoint of multiple countries.

Overall, the study demonstrates the importance of information disclosure in driving investment decisions of firms.

While this paper builds on the information disclosure and corporate investment literature, it is one of the first attempts, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to explore how private UK firms respond to investment in FIAs in an environment characterised by greater PFP.

Proactive career behavior (PCB) is an effective form of career self-management that has positive impacts on individual career development and career success, and therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the driving factors of PCB.

Drawing on the interactionist perspective and situational strength theory, this study examined the independent and joint effects of role commitment and pay-for-performance (PFP) on employees' PCB based on data collected from 298 Chinese private enterprise employees at two time points.

The authors found that occupational role commitment (ORC), parental role commitment (PRC) and PFP were positively related to PCB. Furthermore, PFP moderated the relationship between ORC/PRC and PCB, such that the two relationships were stronger when PFP was low.

Drawing on the interactionist perspective, the authors contribute to the literature on PCB by revealing novel antecedents of PCB: ORC, PRC and PFP. The authors also contribute to the situational strength theory by examining how role commitment and PFP may interact to impact employees' PCB. Finally, the authors are among the first to consider the effects of role commitment on individual career behaviors, thus extending the nomological network of role commitment.

Building on the arguments of expectancy theory and social exchange theory, the present study provides insights into the process by which pay-for-performance (PFP) impacts employee job performance.

Based on a sample size of 226 employees working in a technology company in India, the study examines the relationships between PFP, procedural justice, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and employee job performance. Data on perceptions of PFP and procedural justice were collected from the employees, data on OCB were collected from the supervisors and the data on employee job performance were collected from organizational appraisal records.

The study found support for the positive relationship between PFP and job performance and for the sequential mediation of the relationship between PFP and job performance via procedural justice and OCB. Further, procedural justice was found to mediate the relationship between PFP and OCB.

The study was cross-sectional, so inferences about causality are limited.

The study tests the relationship between PFP and employee job performance in the Indian work context. The study shows that the existence of PFP is positively related to procedural justice which, in turn, is positively related to OCB. The study found support for the sequential mediation of PFP-job performance relationship via procedural justice and OCB.

The study provides an insight into the underlying process through which PFP is related to employee job performance. To the best of our knowledge, such a study is the first of its kind undertaken in an organizational context.

This study aims to address the question of why organizations do not uniformly apply pay for performance (PFP) throughout the organization, focusing on the wider occupational structure in which they and the jobs they create are embedded. The authors propose a model of “occupational differentiation” whereby the probability of a job within a given organization having PFP increases with the levels of monitoring difficulty and requisite human asset specificity characterizing the occupation to which a job belongs, being highest in occupations characterized by high levels of both (generally managerial and professional occupations).

Using the Workplace Employment Relations Survey (a nationally representative matched employer–employee dataset for Britain), this paper investigates this question for all 350 occupations delineated by the UK's Office for National Statistics using regression methods that adjust for other confounding factors such as demographic factors and workplace fixed effects.

The authors find organizations “occupationally differentiate” the use of PFP in ways consistent with the model, i.e. PFP is most likely to be found in occupations characterized by both high monitoring difficulty and high requisite human asset specificity (mainly managerial and professional occupations) and least likely in occupations scoring low in both. The finding holds across PFP types (individual, group, organizational), whether organizations are large or small, and hold across most industrial sectors.

The main implication of this study is that organizations appear to be taking into consideration whether the wider profession to which a job belongs when implementing PFP, irrespective of their own human resource management strategies and organizational context. There are a few limitations to this study, with the main one being that this model is mainly confined to empirical support is only found in the private sector. The public sector appears to be beyond the reach of the model, where PFP implementation is generally rarer. A second limitation is that the dataset is from 2011 and only covers a single country.

Given organizations appear to be implementing PFP based on occupation, this may lead to equity concerns, as different groups are being treated differently within organizations based upon their occupational group.

As PFP jobs tend to pay more than non-PFP jobs and PFP prevalence has been growing, by being more likely to implement it for generally high-paid groups (generally higher managerial and professional occupations), PFP may contribute to wider pay differentials within and between organizations.

By introducing the occupational-level of analysis and the differential nature of tasks across occupational groups, the model offers a new midrange, sociological perspective to understanding intra-organizational dynamics in PFP use and potentially human resource practices more broadly.

This paper documents the growing dependence of Australian governments on the use of private funding to provide infrastructure and related services to the public. Using a Habermasian framework proposed by Broadbent and Laughlin in 1999 the paper examines their second research question: “what is the nature of PFI and who is regulating its application?” to frame an analysis of the complex relationships between steering media and steering mechanisms in determining the operation of privately financed projects (PFP) in Australia. A secondary, but related concern is to explore the linkages between the macro‐economic policy debates that gave rise to PFP and their implications for the micro‐organisational control issues. The debate about whether or not PFP are a response by governments to macro economic pressures remains unresolved. Similarly, there is evidence that governments are not as successful as private‐sector consortia at identifying and shifting risk and, therefore, at achieving value‐for‐money. Ultimate PFP outcomes depend on two factors: broad policy parameters established by governments (steering mechanisms) either discreetly, or through other appointed steering media; and execution at the micro or organisational level, that is, on the decisions and actions taken by a variety of actors interfacing with PFP.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of pay-for-performance (PFP) perception and pay level satisfaction on work attitudes (job satisfaction, turnover intention and affective commitment) and extra-role behaviors (discretionary effort and interpersonal helping), and further, how three aspects of conditional factors – intrinsic motivation, leader–member exchange (LMX) and perceived organizational support (POS) – moderate the main-effect relationships.

The study was conducted at a Chinese private-owned company in the beauty industry, and a survey was conducted with the frontline employees in each office, asking information about their perceptions and attitudes toward the PFP scheme implemented in the company, work attitudes and performance, individual characteristics and their perceptions of group and organizational characteristics.

Results show that PFP perception and pay level satisfaction are significant predictors of work attitudes and extra-role behaviors. Further, depending on the specific work outcome examined, the three conditioning factors are found to strengthen the hypothesized main-effect relationships. The findings of the study have important theoretical and practical implications for the implementation of PFP schemes in organizations.

The findings contribute to the scholarship on PFP schemes in two ways. First, the findings show that PFP perception and pay level satisfaction are important for understanding employee work attitudes and extra-role behaviors. Second, the investigation of the moderating roles that intrinsic motivation, LMX and POS play in the relationships of PFP perception and pay level satisfaction with the work outcomes provides evidence to the limited understanding about the conditions that may strengthen or weaken the effectiveness of PFP schemes.

Pay for performance has been studied in Western nations, but much less so in China and its non‐public enterprises. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the current situation of pay for performance in China's non‐public firms, specifically the importance of pay for performance in the current pay system and reasons for adopting pay for performance plans by the management.

A multi‐case study of non‐public sector, knowledge intensive firms based in Shanghai, China is presented. In total, 12 private‐owned, joint ventures and multinational companies from pharmaceutical, information technology and investment industries are included.

This paper explores that pay for performance has been widely used in non‐public sector as an important component of the employee pay mix. Performance also plays a role as a key norm in employee pay determinant plans. Three major factors are identified as reasons for management to apply pay for performance plans. The first concerns external factors – market practices/best practices; while the other two factors are internal reasons – the need to attract and retain good performers as well as the need to improve employee performance.

This paper discusses the content and context changes of pay for performance practices in China after the economic reforms in 1978 to present. It is now evident that Chinese firms are becoming much more receptive to performance‐oriented rewards.

Previous studies concerning on the effect of reward on individual creativity have generated generally inconsistent conclusions. These ambiguities call for more studies to explore the potential boundary conditions under which reward may or may not promote creativity. The purpose of this paper is to clarify how pay for performance (PFP), a specific type of extrinsic reward awarded in field settings, impacts employees’ creative self-efficacy, and their creativity under varying levels of procedural justice as well as willingness to take risks.

This study used a survey method to investigate nine enterprises in China. A total of 236 matched subordinate-supervisor questionnaires were returned (a 94.4 percent response rate). Because of missing data, the final usable sample comprised 213 subordinate-supervisor matched questionnaires.

The results suggest that for employees with low procedural justice perception or low willingness to take risks, PFP was negatively related to creative self-efficacy and creativity; where procedural justice or willingness to take risks was high, those relationships were positive. In addition, moderated path analysis revealed that when procedural justice or willingness to take risks was high, PFP had a positive indirect effect on creativity via creative self-efficacy, whereas when procedural justice or willingness to take risks was low, the indirect effects of PFP on creativity via creative self-efficacy were negative.

The findings shed light on the process through which and the conditions under which PFP may promote creativity.

The findings have concrete implications for how to leverage PFP to enhance employee creativity through creative self-efficacy.

The results further underscore the need to rethink the simple reward-promotes (or hinders)-creativity model in order to think in more complex ways about how and under what conditions PFP might promote or inhibit creativity. Second, the results of this research better explain how PFP promotes or inhibits creative performance by pointing to the important mediating role of creative self-efficacy. Finally, the results indicated that social cognitive theory can be used as an overarching theory to clarify how and why reward can influence creativity. Thus, the research contributes to the current literature by developing a new theoretical perspective for exploring the relation of reward to creativity.