Contingent reward leader behaviour: Where does it come from?

Abstract

As many academics have pointed out, while researchers have learned a great deal about the effects of contingent reward (CR) leader behaviour, relatively little is known about its genesis. CR transactional leadership is traditionally viewed as an independent variable which exerts influence downstream. However, if we are to understand how to influence, improve or modify these downstream effects, we need to shift our focus upstream towards the study of transactional leadership as a dependent variable. In line with this reasoning, we put forward the hypothesis that a contextual variable (organizational learning capability) and a subordinate's characteristic (employability) are antecedents of CR transactional leader behaviour. These original relationships will be empirically assessed, alongside the well documented relationship between CR leader behaviour and a worker's individual performance. Our hypothesis was tested on a sample of 795 professors from 70 university departments, using structural equation methodology.

Is What’s Past Prologue? A Review and Agenda for Contemporary Employability Research

“…Social exchange theory (SET; Blau, 1964) is commonly used in research either testing or implying reciprocity between employers and employees. Most studies adopting this perspective, however, highlight how employer investments in employability lead to mutual gains, that is enhanced employability for employees and loyalty and performance for employers (Camps & Torres, 2011;Philippaers et al, 2017). Similar mechanisms were discussed in empirical work on temporary workers (Chambel et al, 2015;Chambel & Sobral, 2011).…”

“…Employers offer an array of employability-enhancing investments, such as job design (learning value of the job, job quality), aspects tied to the supervisor (e.g., LMX, attitude towards older workers, leadership, support for training and development, and general support), overall climate (general, age-supportive, employability culture, learning climate), as well as career management. Employees, in turn, make various contributions in the form of positive attitudes, such as job satisfaction (De Cuyper et al, 2009), affective organizational commitment (Chambel et al, 2015;De Cuyper et al, 2009;Espada & Chambel, 2013;Philippaers et al, 2017), workgroup commitment (Philippaers et al, 2017), as well as desirable employee behaviors-in-role performance (Camps & Torres, 2011;Hahn & Kim, 2018;), extra-role efforts (Hahn & Kim, 2018), and reduced counterproductive work behaviors (Philippaers et al, 2017).…”

“…In contrast, the reciprocity perspective in employability research is mostly about backward-looking exchanges. Employees, for instance, show commitment because of past employer investments in employability (e.g., Camps & Torres, 2011;Chambel et al, 2015;Philippaers et al, 2017) or employers invest because of past employee contributions (Fleishmann & Koster, 2018).…”

Supervisors’ Leadership Styles’ Influence on Foreign Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in a Cross-Cultural Work Setting: A Moderated Mediation Analysis

“…Those who adopt the transactional leadership approach exhibit two main characteristics; contingent rewards and punishments (Camps & Torres, 2011), and active/passive management by exception (Penno, 2020). Contingent rewards imply the provision of material or psychological rewards conditioned upon the fulfillment of agreed contracts.…”

A Study on the Effects of Knowledge Management on Innovation Strategies and Competitive Advantages

“…He further pointed out two innovative factors in the flexibility of economic growth, including technical change and organizational change, and proposed the opinions about innovation as 1. the promotion of new products or new product quality, 2. the possibility of new production being from scientific findings or product commercialization, 3. the development of new markets, 4. the use of new materials, and 5. new industrial structure, such as monopoly or getting rid of monopoly. Camps and Torres (2011) argued that the objective of innovation strategies was to enhance the return on investment of a business and the employees' profitability. Hsiao and Chang (2011) considered innovation strategies as the "process" transforming knowledge into useful goods, in which people, affairs, and objects as well as the interaction and information feedback among relative departments were emphasized; besides, innovation was the major source to create knowledge and expand technological knowledge.…”