Suchergebnisse

Based on social identity theory, exclusive talent programs can be understood to divide employees into two groups—'talents' versus 'non-talents'—creating a setting where ostracism may occur. Using 360°-video vignettes (Study 1; N = 184) and text vignettes (Study 2 and 3; N = 243 and 573) we recreate a fictional HR board meeting and trouble three assumptions commonly held in the talent management literature: First, does exclusive talent management indeed lead to a feeling of exclusion and turnover amongst non-talents? Second, do emotional reactions to talent management spill over between employees? Third, does transparent communication reduce negative employee reactions, as is often assumed? We found that employees identified as talents in fact anticipate more ostracism by non-talents than vice versa, increasing talents' intention to quit. However, this effect only occurred when non-talents displayed contrastive emotional responses to talent programs (e.g., resentment), not when they displayed assimilative responses (e.g., admiration). In addition, talents' anticipation of being ostracized by non-talents was also found to be reduced when organizations implemented talent management secrecy. This study addresses researchers' and practitioners' concerns about talent retention and provides theoretical and practical implications for the field of workforce differentiation, social identity theory, and organizational intergroup conflicts.

We examined how perceived distributive and procedural justice affected the relationship between an employee's identification as a high potential (drawn from archival data), job satisfaction and work effort. A questionnaire was distributed within one large company among employees who were and employees who were not identified as a high potential (n = 203). The results indicated that perceptions of distributive justice were significantly higher for employees identified as a high potential. Moreover, perceived distributive justice fully mediated the relationship between an employee's identification and his or her level of job satisfaction. The results also revealed that perceptions of procedural justice moderated the relationship between perceived distributive justice and work effort. Theoretical and practical consequences of these findings are discussed.

This study employs Uncertainty Management Theory (UMT) to explore how co-workers respond to supervisors' communication about idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), specifically comparing secrecy and transparency. We suggest that co-workers' perceptions of i-deal secrecy, as opposed to transparency, lead to uncertainty. Moreover, misalignment between co-workers' perceptions and supervisors' intentions regarding i-deal communication may create a second source of uncertainty. We propose that co-workers cope with this uncertainty by forming moral judgments about the i-deal communication, which subsequently relate to their trust in their supervisor and their turnover intentions. Data were collected from 27 supervisors and 224 co-workers across 27 teams, resulting in 224 matched co-worker-supervisor responses. Polynomial regressions reveal varying outcomes depending on the (mis)alignment between co-workers' perceptions and supervisors' intentions. Co-workers' moral judgments, trust in their supervisor and turnover intentions are optimal when they perceive i-deal transparency, regardless of the supervisor's intentions. These factors are suboptimal when co-workers' perceptions of i-deal secrecy align with supervisors' intentions, and detrimental when co-workers perceive i-deal secrecy while supervisors intend transparency. Our findings highlight the potential consequences of supervisors' intentions for i-deal transparency, showing they can be positive or negative depending on co-workers' perceptions. Moreover, supervisors' intentions for i-deal secrecy are not necessarily problematic as long as co-workers perceive transparency. Yet, once secrecy intentions are revealed, suboptimal co-worker reactions occur.