Rewarding collective outcomes has become an increasingly important strategic motivational tool for driving collective success, reflecting the insight that paying employees for individual contributions does not always optimize performance in collective endeavors. Research into different types of collective pay for performance (PFP), or pay that is contingent on collective outcomes, has been studied in diverse academic fields (e.g., economics, strategy, psychology), but the compartmentalization between these academic disciplines hinders conceptual coordination. To advance this research and its related insights, this article provides a review of the theory and evidence pertaining to the relationships between different collective PFP types and collective outcomes. We also provide a meta-analysis that shows that collective PFP has desirable outcomes (e.g., meta-analysis shows an overall ρ = 0.11; p < .001), substantiating the value of studying collective PFP separately from individual PFP. The review also reveals a lack of empirical and theoretical development and highlights the need for a comprehensive theory of collective PFP. Our cross-disciplinary review of 106 empirical articles builds a foundation for advancing common pursuits, integrating knowledge, and creating theory. The consolidated perspectives point to promising directions for future research.

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. The link between human resource (HR) policies and practices designed to influence unit 1 performance is the human capital resource (HCR). 2 The HCR, defined as 'individual or unit-level capacities based on [individual knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics] (KSAOs) that are accessible for unit-relevant purposes'

Both macro- and micro-oriented researchers frequently use panel data where the outcome of interest is measured repeated times. Panel data support at least five different modeling frameworks (within, between, incremental/emergent, cross-level, and growth). Researchers from macro- and micro-oriented domains tend to differentially use the frameworks and also use different analytic tools and terminology when using the same modeling framework. These differences have the potential to inhibit cross-discipline communication. In this review, we explore how macro- and microresearchers approach panel data with a specific emphasis on the theoretical implications of choosing one framework versus another. We illustrate how fixed-effects and random-effects models differ and how they are similar, and we conduct a thorough review of 142 articles that used panel data in leading management journals in 2017. Ultimately, our review identifies ways that researchers can better employ fixed- and random-effects models, model time as a meaningful predictor or ensure unobserved time heterogeneity is controlled, and align hypotheses to analytic choice. In the end, our goal is to help facilitate communication and theory development between macro- and micro-oriented management researchers.

No abstract

During the past 10 years, the field of human capital resources (HCR), often referred to as strategic human capital (SHC), has gained interest in both micro and macro disciplines. This increase in attention from a diverse set of researchers has shifted the focus of the field to topics such as identifying different types of HCR, HCR emergence, and links between collective HCR and higher level outcomes. The first decade of dedicated HCR research led to the growth of distinct research streams and forged its own robust and growing literature. However, after a decade of progress, the field is splintered. To unite the field and create a solid foundation for building future research, we provide a cohesive perspective of lessons learned in the first decade of dedicated HCR research, which has primarily focused on collective HCR. This review examines 194 articles, revealing several themes that have emerged, an integrated model that flows from the review, and rich opportunities for future research to both integrate and expand the growing HCR field for the next decade and beyond.