Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the cross-sectional associations between growth options and the peer pay–performance sensitivity of CEO compensation.

This study includes analytical analysis and multivariable regression analysis.

It is predicted in this study that there is a non-linear concave relation between peer pay–performance sensitivity and a firm’s growth options. Results based on the executive compensation data from ExecuComp are consistent with the hypothesis presented in this study.

Future scholars need to consider the non-linear impact of growth options on peer pay–performance sensitivity when they conduct research related to CEO compensation by differentiating the company’s growth options to be at a low, medium and high level. In an industry, when a compensation committee decides on the peers for performance comparison purposes, the committee needs to make sure that the peer firms they select have similar operational environments, for example, they face similar growth options (e.g. low, medium or high) and idiosyncratic variances.

This study contributes to the managerial compensation literature by revealing the important role growth options, as well as idiosyncratic variances, play on peer pay–performance sensitivity. The results of this study have implications for both future researchers as well as industrial practitioners.

It gives guidance on designing CEO compensation contracts.

This is an original work from the coauthors listed on this study.

360° feedback processes have gained popularity as a performance management and career development tool in contemporary organisations. This monograph explores the nature of 360° feedback, investigates the factors which have influenced its emergence and contrasts it with more traditional performance management processes used by organisations. It specifically identifies the benefits and problems associated with 360° feedback in the context of management of performance and employee career development. The monograph considers the issues surrounding different sources of feedback, i.e. peer, subordinate and self. The monograph concludes with a discussion of the issues pertaining to the use of multi‐rater feedback as a tool for performance improvement and career development.

To examine the relationship between self‐esteem and job performance using others' perceptions of self‐esteem and to examine agreement in ratings of self‐esteem across sources.

A sample of 143 sales representatives, 113 supervisors, 420 peers, 435 customers, and 510 family and friends completed Rosenberg's measure of self‐esteem and a measure of acquaintanceship. Peers and supervisors rated the subjects' job performance. Correlations and hierarchical regression were used to explore the relationships.

Customer, peer, and supervisor perceptions of subjects' self‐esteem related significantly to peer and supervisor performance ratings, whereas self and family/friends perceptions did not. There was limited support for the acquaintanceship effect (greater agreement across sources when familiarity is greater), while context affected agreement (same context sources had greater agreement).

The study highlights the importance of looking at an employee from a variety of perspectives. Also, training employees to develop self‐enhancing behaviors may enhance their outcomes. Finally, training raters that their perceptions of co‐workers' self‐esteem may influence evaluations of performance could reduce unconscious errors.

If this had been a traditional study measuring self‐esteem's impact on performance ratings, no significant relationships could have been reported since individuals' perceptions of their own self‐esteem were not valid predictors of performance ratings. It may be the individual's public self‐esteem (e.g. impression management skills) that influences performance ratings. In particular, workplace sources perceived high self‐esteem as being important to job performance. The validity of self‐esteem may be understated through reliance on the self‐report method alone.

This research aims to investigate the differences in evaluations of job performance between male and female managers by those managers’ immediate bosses and peers.

Drawing on gender structure theory, along with ideas about status characteristics, the authors use hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses that male and female bosses and peers deferentially evaluate the male and female manager’s global job performance. The authors hypothesize significant two-way interactions (gender of the manager by gender of evaluator) in predicting a manager’s job performance.

The results suggest that while male peers rate female managers’ job performance significantly lower than that of male managers, female peers do not discriminate between genders in their performance evaluations. Also, managers’ bosses were found not to discriminate between genders of their subordinates.

The limitations of this study have to do primarily with the data. While the data are rich on some dimensions, they are weak on others, especially with regard to the detail about the jobs the respondents did, detailed level of familiarity with the evaluated managers, as well as racial background. The data also do not provide information on the different facets of job performance, the evaluation of which could potentially be impacted by managerial gender; this study is focused exclusively on global job performance.

The authors discuss various theoretical explanations of this pattern of results, as well as its possible influence on female managers’ careers. Although the effect size of the negative bias that male peers exhibit toward female managers is relatively small, it may be argued that lower performance assessments can accumulate over years in multiple job evaluations, negatively affecting the career of female leaders.

The evaluations supplied by different organizational members gain importance with the increased use of 360-degree feedback instruments not just for developmental but also for the job performance appraisal purposes. While the job evaluations of managers’ bosses have been investigated in the past with regard to the possible gender bias, this study provides the first known to the authors’, evidence. Also, this study points to a direct bias in performance assessments, rather than a potentially more subtle, non-performance-based bias that affects the disparities in wages and promotions of female managers. Thus, this study helps to fill a significant gap in the literature on organizations and it may have practical implications for the advancement of female managers. In addition to this contribution, this study also provides data that may be useful in resolving the ongoing debate whether female bosses act more as cogs in the machine or as change agents in organizations.

Home-peer firms (i.e. firms from the same industry and country) noticeably influence the internationalization behavior of small-to-medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Drawing from vicarious learning literature, the authors theorize how home-peer firms' success in export markets affects SMEs' export intensity into those markets.

The authors test the hypotheses on a sample of 32,108 Canadian SME exporters. A Tobit model was used to examine the effect of home-peer performance and its interactions with firm age, export experience, and geographic and institutional distance on export entry intensity.

The authors find that SMEs are more likely to enter export markets with higher intensity if home-peer firms perform well in those markets. This home-peer influence is stronger when the SME lacks export experience, when the home-peer information is more recent, and when environmental uncertainty is high.

The study is among the first to show empirically that the performance of home-peers positively influences the export intensity of SMEs in international markets, suggesting that SMEs use this measure to inform their internationalization strategies.

The purpose of this study was to examine inter‐rater agreement on counterproductive performance between self‐ and peer‐ratings, and the factors that moderate this agreement. The factors investigated included self‐reported levels of counterproductive performance and known antecedents of counterproductive performance: conscientiousness and integrity values.

Data were gathered (three to five peer ratings per individual) from 108 undergraduate students.

The paper finds that there was a significantly low correlation between self‐ and peer‐ ratings of counterproductive performance. Ratings given by peers were much higher than ratings given by oneself. Individuals and peers who are similar in the extent to which they engage in counterproductive behaviors were in agreement with respect to ratings of counterproductive performance.

This study provided evidence that rater disagreement is a consistent phenomenon across dimensions of performance. In addition, rater perceptions of counterproductive performance have a significant impact on overall performance ratings; therefore individual differences between the rater and ratee may have a large influence on overall ratings in an organizational setting. There is some evidence in this study that peer ratings of counterproductive behavior vary depending on the rater's own counterproductive behaviors. The fact that rater agreement is influenced by the rater's own behavior implies that individual rater effects are influencing counterproductive performance measurement.

This study adds value by extending the literature on inter‐rater agreement to counterproductive performance. In addition, this study is unique in that it shows that a rater's own level of counterproductive performance can impact their ratings of others.

Our study investigates the influence of peer performance on the earnings management decisions within publicly traded Indian companies. There is mixed evidence in the literature, with the impact of peer performance on earnings management in emerging markets being notably underexplored. Additionally, the study explores whether robust corporate governance mechanisms can mitigate earnings management practices. Our study offers policy insights into these areas.

Our study used a longitudinal panel dataset from 2011 to 2020, utilising idiosyncratic returns of peer firms as an external measure of peer performance. This approach is further enhanced by the usage of alternative discretionary accrual metrics, which could be a robust measure for both market leaders and followers.

Our study employs two distinct methods, accrual and real earnings management, to assess earnings management. The findings indicate that peer performance triggers earnings management within peer groups, showcasing managerial opportunism in financial reporting to align with peer achievements. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that robust corporate governance effectively curtails earnings management, especially in industries where peer influence is significant.

Our study offers valuable insights for regulators, highlighting that enhancing the institutional framework with stringent corporate governance mechanisms can effectively reduce earnings management in companies within emerging markets.

The paper is a novel attempt in emerging markets to show that managers engage in opportunistic reporting to align with the performance of their peers and that governance strategies effectively mitigate these practices in such markets.

This study seeks to examine the links between employee agreeableness, group performance, and peers' perceptions of threat of retaliation, through relationship conflict.

In a laboratory setting, 42 groups of undergraduate students (N = 182) from a Pakistani university were assigned to group projects to be completed within four months. Data collected from three different questionnaires at four different times and actual scores awarded by the course instructor to each group were used for the analyses. Based on r_WG(J) and ICC(1), level 1 (182 students') data were aggregated to level 2 (groups), and then analysed using regression analysis followed by Preacher and Hayes' bootstrapping procedure.

Results suggest that high agreeableness predicts group performance positively and peers' perceptions of threat of retaliation negatively. Moreover, relationship conflict among group members significantly mediates the agreeableness-group performance relationship. The above relationships may be sensitive to national culture.

In this study, groups were formed for a few months, whereas in real organizational life, workgroups are formed for different durations. Therefore, the range of situations to which these findings generalize remains an open question.

Agreeableness of group members can be constructive for performance of the group. Managers may utilize this insight while forming groups, and rating performance.

There is dearth of research illuminating how employee's personality traits affect group performance and appraisal ratings. The study tests the effects of employee agreeableness on: (1) group performance, as rated by supervisors; (2) the threat of retaliation, as perceived by peer raters; and (3) the mediating effect of relationship conflict.

Venture capital’s role in clean energy (CE) technologies can be transformative in creating a sustainable society. Yet there are limitations on how far venture capitalists (VCs) can go in supporting these technologies. These limits exist because of the performance expectations of the main stakeholder group who hold VCs accountable. The financial backers of VCs expect an exceptional return on their investment, given the high level of risk they take on when they invest in unproven startups. This chapter explores the constraints that the financial obligations VCs have to their main backers put on their role in bringing about a more sustainable global society. It investigates VC firms’ responses to CE exits (initial public offerings (IPOs) and acquisitions) and shows how prior CE exits affect CE investment growth when we compare VCs exit records to that of their peers. This chapter demonstrates that VCs only increase CE investments when the cumulative number of exits substantially exceed that of their peers, while they decrease these investments when the cumulative number of their exits only moderately outpace that of their peers. The chapter suggests that the reason VCs respond in this way is the financial pressure VCs experience because of their dependence on their financial backers.

This study investigates whether corporate executives, who are university alumni, influence each other's firm corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance.

Drawing on social network theory, the authors hypothesise that a firm's CSR performance is positively associated with its peer firms' average CSR performance when the executives of the firm and its peer firms are university alumni. The study employs data from 1,685 listed firms and 4,906 executives who graduated from 585 different universities in China and runs multivariate regressions.

The results reveal a sizeable university peer influence on CSR performance. Such influence is even stronger for executives who graduated from elite universities (e.g. 985 or 211 universities), and universities or programmes that provide more opportunities for alumni reunions or networking (e.g. MBAs/EMBAs). Executives who are more influential in making firm decisions (e.g. CEOs/CFOs), as well as firms that are more likely to mimic the behaviour of others, also show higher degrees of university peer influence.

The results highlight the role of education in ethical decision-making.

This study documents evidence on a new determinant of firm CSR performance. The study sheds light on the impact of non-institutionalised personal ties, for example, university alumni networks, on CSR performance.