Search results

"Pay, and particularly others' pay, is a topic of interest to all of us. While we may deem it inappropriate to ask our boss what others in the organization are earning, that doesn't mean we wouldn't like to know. Nor is this due merely to curiosity. Knowing the figures on others' paychecks is important because, lacking such information, it's difficult for us to assess how fair our own pay is, whether we are justified in seeking a raise, or whether it's worth our while to seek our fortune in some other organization or career. Moreover, we might look favorably upon greater transparency in pay-related matters not only as employees, but also as citizens. Greater pay transparency might serve as a means to (a) better ensure that labor markets efficiently match individuals with those employers most able to leverage their talent, and (b) make it harder for employers to discriminate, whether intentionally or not, against women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups with respect to pay."

While governments around the world have adopted policies and regulations making pay more transparent, pay transparency continues to be a contentious issue. Proponents argue that greater transparency is more consistent with the ethical underpinnings of humanistic societies and likely to benefit employees, employers, and/or society. In contrast, opponents highlight the ethical challenges that transparency may pose to personal privacy, as well as its potential social, psychological, and economic risks for stakeholders. Despite mixed beliefs, there may be some transparency-related shifts that most stakeholders welcome, or at least accept, as well as reforms whose benefits likely outweigh particularistic stakeholder costs, offering society-wide, longer term utility. We first discuss steps that policymakers and leaders may take that are likely to have positive implications for both labor and management while minimizing unintended, negative consequences and then review recent public policy interventions already adopted, as well as additional interventions to be considered for future adoption.

This study examines the role of workplace risk factors associated with stress, social availability, and policy enforcement in explaining the severity of alcohol misuse among truck and bus drivers. Using a sample of 227 commercial (i.e., bus and truck) drivers drawn randomly from the employees of eight Israeli transportation enterprises, findings indicate that less than 6% of drivers engage in hazardous drinking, with a far smaller proportion engaging in more risky forms of misuse (i.e., harmful or dependent drinking). Key work-related factors associated with the severity of drivers' alcohol misuse include the perception of permissive coworker drinking norms, role conflict, and supervisory abuse. Consistent with tension relief models of alcohol misuse, felt strain mediated the association between driver stressors and the severity of alcohol misuse. Perceptions of coworker drinking norms moderated the associations between stressors and supervisory monitoring (on one hand) and alcohol misuse (on the other). Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

We integrate psychological and socio-structural perspectives on empowerment by examining: a) the impact of actual structural empowerment initiatives (as opposed to perceptions of such empowering acts) aimed at enhancing employee influence over which tasks to perform (as opposed to how to perform them) on employee well-being and performance, b) the degree to which self-efficacy mediates these effects, and c) the extent to which, by applying such initiatives more selectively, performance-related empowerment effects may be amplified. Results of a simulation-based experiment indicate that while granting decision latitude over which tasks to perform has beneficial effects on both individual performance and well-being, self-efficacy partially mediates the effects only on the latter. Results also indicate that the direct performance-related effects of such interventions may be further increased without any significant decline in employee well-being to the extent that such structural empowerment is applied more selectively and offered as a performance-based incentive.

While social psychologists have widely explored the link between adult attachment styles and interpersonal relating behaviors such as caregiving in intimate relationships, organizational researchers have yet to examine the generalizability of such findings to employee interrelating behaviors at work. Addressing this gap in the research, we extend attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) to the work context in order to generate and test hypotheses regarding the way in which helping behavior may be explained on the basis of the help provider's level of attachment anxiety and avoidance. Data collected from 320 call center employees of a large Israeli telecommunications company suggest that while attachment anxiety is inversely associated with instrumental helping, it also attenuates the inverse effects of attachment avoidance on such helping. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of two key team‐based pay characteristics – namely reward allocation procedures (i.e. reward based on norms of equity, equality or some combination of the two) and incentive intensity – on both the amount and type of help given to one another among members of outcome‐interdependent teams.Design/methodology/approachA total of 180 undergraduate students participate in a laboratory simulation with a 2 × 3 experimental design. Servicing virtual "clients," participants receive pre‐scripted requests for assistance from anonymous teammates. ANOVA and hierarchical regression analyses are used to test the hypotheses.FindingsRelative to equity‐oriented group‐based pay structures, equality‐oriented pay structures are found to be associated with both significantly more help giving in general and more of the type of help likely to enhance group‐level competencies (i.e. autonomous help). Incentive intensity strengthens the effects of reward allocation on the amount (but not the type) of help giving.Research limitations/implicationsWhile the short time frame of the simulation poses a significant threat to external validity, the findings suggest that team‐based compensation practices may provide organizational leaders with an important tool by which to shape critical, helping‐related team processes, with potentially important implications for both team learning and performance.Practical implicationsManagers interested in promoting capacity‐building and helping among team members should avoid allocating team rewards strictly on the basis of the individual contribution.Originality/valueThis paper provides the first empirical findings regarding how alternative modes of team‐based reward distribution may influence key group processes among members of outcome interdependent teams.