Pay dispersion and workforce performance: moderating effects of incentives and interdependence

By Jason D. Shaw, N. Gupta, John E. Delery. 2002

377 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8a6a8dfad3de9a5396551e14a19f844cbd7ad50b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Jason D. Shaw
2. C. Trevor
3. N. Gupta
4. David P. Lepak
5. B. Gerhart
6. Hari Bapuji
7. Greg Reilly
8. E. Franck

In Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

1. Jason D. Shaw
2. David P. Lepak
3. N. Gupta
4. C. Trevor
5. E. Franck
6. Stephan Nüesch
7. Hari Bapuji
8. Sven Kepes

Citations in the corpus

• CONTINGENCIES IN THE EFFECTS OF PAY RANGE ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (2009, methodology): “Political factors rarely (if ever) represent official policy and can erode organizational outcomes such as retention and performance (Gupta & Jenkins, 1996; Shaw et al., 2002).”
• The effect of wage dispersion on team outcome and the way team outcome is produced (2011, positive): “( 2002 ) show that wage dispersion will be associated with higher levels of workforce performance if accompanied by formal individual incentive systems and independent work.”
• Creating incentives for innovation? The relationship between pay dispersion in R&D groups and firm innovation performance (2013, background): “…that horizontal pay dispersion evokes stronger employee reactions than vertical pay dispersion (i.e., pay differentials across different job levels) because pay differentiation is more relevant when it is framed in reference to colleagues holding similar positions (Shaw, Gupta, and Delery, 2002).”
• Let the evidence speak again! Financial incentives are more effective than we thought (2015, background): “A surfeit of studies on pay fairness (Shaw and Gupta, 2001; Shaw, in press, b), unexplained variation in pay (Shaw et al., 2002; Kepes et al., 2009; Trevor et al., 2012; Conroy et al., 2014; Shaw, 2014), explanations and procedural justice (e.g. Shaw et al., 2003) tell us clearly that individuals…”
• Has Agency Theory Run its Course?: Making the Theory More Flexible to Inform the Management of Reward Systems (2012, background): “In this way, Shaw, Gupta, and Delery (2002) explain the power of pay dispersion as an element that favors the implementation of a strategy combining classic economic perspectives with institutional theory and organizational justice.”
• Strategic HRM in North America: looking to the future (2008, positive): “As an example, Shaw et al. (2002) found that a wide variation in the pay structure across employees, i.e. highly dispersed pay was associated with better performance only when combined with the use of performance-based pay.”
• PAY SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS AND QUIT PATTERNS OF GOOD, AVERAGE, AND POOR PERFORMERS (2007, positive): “A systems or “bundles” approach to examining the impact of HRM practices is increasingly popular in strategic HRM research (e.g., Arthur, 1992; Delery & Doty, 1996; Huselid, 1995), including studies focused on compensation and turnover (Shaw et al., 2002; Shaw et al., 2005).”
• Rethinking Measurement of Pay Disparity and Its Relation to Firm Performance (2019, background): “12 As Shaw, Gupta, and Delery (2002) puts it, “…[pay] dispersion per se is neither functional nor dysfunctional; rather, situational contingencies determine the strategic effectiveness of dispersion (or lack thereof)” (pg. 504).”
• The dysfunctions of power in teams: A review and emergent conflict perspective (2017, background): “…and politics go hand-in-hand in teams with a single power holder (i.e., high power-dispersed teams; e.g., Bloom, 1999; Greer & Van Kleef, 2010; Shaw et al., 2002; Van Bunderen, Greer et al., 2017; Van Bunderen, Van Knippenberg et al., 2017; for a meta-analysis on team power-dispersion, see…”
• Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership (2008, neutral): “that contingency rewards, which reflect the degree to which benefits for individual team members depend on their team’s outcome, are beneficial to senior teams confronted with pressures for mutual adjustment (Harrison et al., 2002; Shaw et al., 2002; Wageman and Baker, 1997).”
• Pay inequalities and team performance (2003, result): “This argument is further strengthened by Shaw et al. (2002)”
• Reconsidering Pay Dispersion's Effect on the Performance of Interdependent Work: Reconciling Sorting and Pay Inequality (2012, background): “The conceptual approach and empirical findings presented here are not only new, but are in stark contrast to the prevailing wisdom, as interdependence is virtually always cited as the context in which pay dispersion will be particularly disruptive (e.g., Akerlof & Yellen, 1988; Bloom, 1999; Levine, ”