Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2022 (3) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (2)
- Postprint (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (3) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- 0thers’ behavior (2)
- corporate rules (2)
- noncompliance (2)
- others’ expectations (2)
- performance pressure (2)
- tone at the bottom (2)
- tone at the top (2)
Doing good by doing bad
(2022)
This study investigates how tone at the top, implemented by top management, and tone at the bottom, in an employee’s immediate work environment, determine noncompliance. We focus on the disallowed actions of employees that improve their own and, in turn, the company’s performance, referred to as performance-improving noncompliant behavior (PINC behavior). We conduct a survey of German sales employees to investigate specifically how, on the one hand, (1) corporate rules and (2) performance pressure, both implemented by top management, and, on the other hand, (3) others’ PINC expectations and (4) others’ PINC behavior, both arising from the employee’s immediate work environment, influence PINC behavior. When considered in isolation, we find that corporate rules, as top management’s main instrument to guide employee behavior, decrease employee PINC behavior. However, this effect is negatively influenced by the employees’ immediate work environment when employees are expected to engage in PINC or when others engage in PINC. In contrast, even though top management places great performance pressure on employees, that by itself does not increase PINC behavior. Overall, our study informs practitioners and researchers about whether and how the four determinants increase or decrease employees’ PINC behavior, which is important to comprehend triggers and to counteract such misconduct.
Doing good by doing bad
(2022)
This study investigates how tone at the top, implemented by top management, and tone at the bottom, in an employee's immediate work environment, determine noncompliance. We focus on the disallowed actions of employees that improve their own and, in turn, the company's performance, referred to as performance-improving noncompliant behavior (PINC behavior). We conduct a survey of German sales employees to investigate specifically how, on the one hand, (1) corporate rules and (2) performance pressure, both implemented by top management, and, on the other hand, (3) others' PINC expectations and (4) others' PINC behavior, both arising from the employee's immediate work environment, influence PINC behavior. When considered in isolation, we find that corporate rules, as top management's main instrument to guide employee behavior, decrease employee PINC behavior. However, this effect is negatively influenced by the employees' immediate work environment when employees are expected to engage in PINC or when others engage in PINC. In contrast, even though top management places great performance pressure on employees, that by itself does not increase PINC behavior. Overall, our study informs practitioners and researchers about whether and how the four determinants increase or decrease employees' PINC behavior, which is important to comprehend triggers and to counteract such misconduct.
This paper investigates whether and how social-psychological mechanisms, namely reciprocity, demographic similarity, and similar experiences, affect CEO compensation packages with respect to the levels of total, fixed, and short- and mid-term compensation and the variable proportion of the compensation package. We use evidence from Germany as it is considered a prototype of a two-tier board system. Given the primary roles of both the CEO and the chair of the supervisory board, we especially highlight social-psychological mechanisms in the process leading to the final compensation package. Using a hand-collected sample of non-financial constituents of the German HDAX, we find that reciprocity can lead to a compensation package that is more favorable for the CEO. Results on similarity are ambivalent such that the effects of similarity on CEO compensation—both positive and negative—may depend on the dimension of similarity. Finally, the chair’s CEO experience, both inside and outside the focal company, also plays an essential role in shaping CEO compensation. More specifically, CEO experience in general is associated with more favorable compensation. However, having a chair that has been CEO at the focal company correlates with less favorable compensation packages except for when the CEO has also been recruited internally.