Anthony J. Nyberg

Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model.

The authors examined relationships among collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance. Meta-analytic results (based on 6,128 groups, 31,019 individuals, 118 correlations adjusted for dependence, and 96 studies) reveal that collective efficacy was significantly related to group performance (.35). In the proposed nested 2-level model, collective efficacy assessment (aggregation and group discussion) was tested as the 1st-level moderator. It showed significantly different average correlations with group performance (.32 vs. .45), but the group discussion assessment was homogeneous, whereas the aggregation assessment was heterogeneous. Consequently, there was no 2nd-level moderation for the group discussion, and heterogeneity in the aggregation group was accounted for by the 2nd-level moderator, task interdependence (high, moderate, and low levels were significant; the higher the level, the stronger the relationship). The 2nd and 3rd meta-analyses indicated that group potency was related to group performance (.29) and to collective efficacy (.65). When tested in a structural equation modeling analysis based on meta-analytic findings, collective efficacy fully mediated the relationship between group potency and group performance. The authors suggest future research and convert their findings to a probability of success index to help facilitate practice.

Resource-Based Perspectives on Unit-Level Human Capital A Review and Integration

Scholarly interest in leveraging resource-based theory to explore the unit-level human capital resource (HCR) is undergoing a paradigmatic shift in the strategy and strategic human resource management (HRM) literatures. As they undertake this next generation of research, scholars will be informed by a rigorous examination of prior unit-level HCR research. To this end, we present a systematic and multidisciplinary review of scholarship that invokes resource-based theorizing in examining the unit’s HCR. We reviewed 156 articles published in the strategy and strategic HRM literatures that conceptualize HC as a unit-level resource. This review suggests that a multidimensional typology of the unit-level HCR has emerged. In particular, research has examined the HCR’s type, context, and antecedents. We build on our review of this multidimensional typology to propose a multilevel conceptual integration of current and future unit-level HCR research in the strategy and strategic HRM domains. Current scholarly work in these two areas suggests that these two literatures are converging, and the multidimensional HCR typology suggested by our review informs this convergence. We conclude with a discussion of future research domains that will advance the multilevel theoretical integration we propose.

Human Capital Is Dead; Long Live Human Capital Resources!

This paper introduces a radically different conceptualization of human capital resources that runs counter to the individual-level approaches that have dominated human capital theory for the last 50 years. We leverage insights from economics, strategy, human resources, and psychology to develop an integrated and holistic framework that defines the structure, function, levels, and combinations of human capital resources. This multidisciplinary framework redefines human capital resources as individual or unit-level capacities based on individual knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) that are accessible for unit-relevant purposes. The framework and definition offer three broad contributions. First, multidisciplinary communication is facilitated by providing precise definitions and distinctions between individual differences, KSAOs, human capital, human capital resources, and strategic human capital resources. Second, given that human capital resources originate in individuals’ KSAOs, multiple distinct types of human capital resources exist at individual and collective levels, and these types are much more diverse than the historical generic-specific distinction. Third, the multiple types of human capital resources may be combined within and across levels, via processes of emergence and complementarity. Consequently, the locus of competitive advantage has less to do with whether human capital resources are generic or specific but instead occurs because nearly all human capital resource combinations are complex, are firm-specific, and lack strategic (or efficient) factor markets. Overall, the proposed multidisciplinary framework opens new avenues for future research that challenge the prevailing literature’s treatment of human capital resources.

Retaining your high performers: moderators of the performance-job satisfaction-voluntary turnover relationship.

Two divergent ideas explain the relationship between performance and voluntary turnover. One suggests that higher performing employees, who are rewarded for their superior work product, will desire to remain with an organization that values their performance and will, consequently, be less likely than lower performing employees to voluntarily leave. An alternative idea suggests that higher performing employees, who are more desirable to external companies as a result of their superior work product, will have more external job opportunities and will, consequently, be more likely than their lower performing colleagues to voluntarily leave. The current study evaluated the behaviors and attitudes of 12,545 insurance employees over a 3-year period to examine how these 2 divergent expectations influence the performance-voluntary turnover relationship. Results show that both pay growth and the relevant unemployment rate interact with performance to influence the performance-voluntary turnover relationship and that they work independently of employee job satisfaction influences.

A conceptual and empirical analysis of the cognitive ability-voluntary turnover relationship.

Despite much research into cognitive ability as a selection tool and a separate large literature on the causes of voluntary turnover, little theoretical or empirical work connects the two. We propose that voluntary turnover is also a potentially key outcome of cognitive ability. Incorporating ideas from the person-environment fit literature and those regarding push and pull influences on turnover, we posit a theoretical connection between cognitive ability and voluntary turnover that addresses both why and how voluntary turnover is related to cognitive ability. Integrating data from 3 different sources, our empirical analyses support the theoretical perspective that the relationship between cognitive ability and voluntary turnover depends on the cognitive demands of the job. When the cognitive demands of a job are high, our findings support the hypothesized curvilinear relationship between cognitive ability and voluntary turnover, such that employees of higher and lower cognitive ability are more likely than medium cognitive ability employees to leave voluntarily. With regard to jobs with low cognitive demands, our data are more consistent with a negative linear relationship between cognitive ability and voluntary turnover, such that higher cognitive ability employees are less likely to leave voluntarily. We also examine the role of job satisfaction, finding that job satisfaction is more strongly linked to voluntary turnover in jobs with high cognitive demands.

Pay-for-Performance’s Effect on Future Employee Performance Integrating Psychological and Economic Principles Toward a Contingency Perspective

Although pay-for-performance’s potential effect on employee performance is a compelling issue, understanding this dynamic has been constrained by narrow approaches to pay-for-performance conceptualization, measurement, and surrounding conditions. In response, we take a more nuanced perspective by integrating fundamental principles of economics and psychology to identify and incorporate employee characteristics, job characteristics, pay system characteristics, and pay system experience into a contingency model of the pay-for-performance–future performance relationship. We test the role that these four key contextual factors play in pay-for-performance effectiveness using 11,939 employees over a 5-year period. We find that merit and bonus pay, as well as their multiyear trends, are positively associated with future employee performance. Furthermore, our findings indicate that, contrary to what traditional economic perspectives would predict, bonus pay may have a stronger effect on future performance than merit pay. Our results also support a contingency approach to pay-for-performance’s impact on future employee performance, as we find that merit pay and bonus pay can substitute for each other and that the strength of pay-for-performance’s effect is a function of employee tenure, the pay-for-performance trend over time, and job type (presumably due to differences in the measurability of employee performance across jobs).

Stargazing: An Integrative Conceptual Review, Theoretical Reconciliation, and Extension for Star Employee Research

Stars--employees with disproportionately high and prolonged (a) performance, (b) visibility, and (c) relevant social capital--have garnered attention in economics, sociology, and management. However, star research is often isolated within these research disciplines. Thus, 3 distinct star research streams are evolving, each disconnected from the others and each bringing siloed theoretical perspectives, terms, and assumptions. A conceptual review of these perspectives reveals a focus on the expost effects that stars exert in organizations with little explanation of who a star is and how one becomes a star. To synthesize the stars literature across these 3 disciplines, we apply psychological theories, specifically motivation theories, to create an integrative framework for stars research. Thus, we present a unified stars definition and extend theory on the making, managing, and mobility of stars. We extend research about how and why employees may be motivated to become stars, how best to manage stars and their relationships with colleagues, and how to motivate star retention. We then outline directions for future research.

CEO succession: what we know and where to go?

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive analysis and synthesis of the splintered chief executive officer (CEO) succession literature and provide a unifying future research agenda. Design/methodology/approach This review content analyzes 227 relevant articles published after 1994. These articles examine the causes, process, replacement, and consequences of CEO succession. Findings The review develops a comprehensive typology, identifies gaps in the literature, and proposes opportunities for future research. For instance, the CEO succession literature can be classified along four primary dimensions: when, how, who, and consequences. These four primary dimensions are further explained by ten secondary factors and 30 tertiary components. Research opportunities include: enlarging the data pool to expand the repertoire of firms studied, incorporating the CEO’s perspective, and integrating CEO succession research with literatures in selection, turnover, and human capital theory. Practical implications Through integrating research across research domains, future research will be able to better predict when CEO succession will occur, how to avoid unwanted CEO succession, how to better implement CEO succession, and how to minimize negative aspects and maximize positive aspects of CEO succession for the firm and the CEO, as well as understand the consequences of CEO selection, and help move toward and understanding of how to prevent poor performance, and retain high performing CEOs. Originality/value This is the first comprehensive review since 1994. It creates a typology to guide and categorize future research, and shows ways to incorporate relevant, but often ignored literatures (e.g. human resources, psychology, decision making, and human capital).

Human capital resources: a call to retire settled debates and to start a few new debates

Abstract The concept of human capital resources (HCRs) is increasingly the predominant mechanism for explaining how organizations compete strategically through attracting, retaining, and developing talent. Despite the increased attention placed on the HCR construct, progress in HCR research has not advanced as rapidly as related scholarly fields. We posit that some of the lag in HCR research can be attributed to the continued focus on established debates. Rather than focusing on understanding how HCRs are developed and can be leveraged to achieve unit performance differentiation, HCR research often seems preoccupied with long-standing battles. In this manuscript, we provide a commentary on the current state of HCR literature, explain why we recommend reducing discussions along three specific HCR debates, and propose alternative HCR topics for researchers to pursue.

Academic research meets practice: why controversial results are not controversial

Purpose This paper explores some of the practical challenges boards face in setting CEO pay in order to show why the failure to see considerable overlap between pay and performance may not be due to poor governance. Design/methodology/approach The paper critically explores the different types of pay reported in public sources (actual vs. realized) and the types of performance measures used in CEO pay research. The paper then conceptually reviews the broader governance responsibility of boards, particularly the hiring and firing of CEOs and the impact these decisions have on CEO pay. Findings We suggest that much of the lack of overlap between pay and performance may be due to misaligned timing of the pay and performance measures, differences between internally promoted and externally hired CEOs, and severance packages of fired CEOs. We conclude that the lack of overlap may not signal failure on the part of boards, but rather may reflect the risk and uncertainty those boards face in hiring and firing of CE...