High Performer Peer Effects: A Review, Synthesis, and Agenda for Future Research

Abstract

For decades, scholars and managers alike have shared a sustained interest in harnessing the talents of high-performing employees primarily due to their disproportionate contributions. An emerging research stream has begun examining the diverse effects that high performers elicit on their peers. Prior work now spans multiple organizational fields of study and utilizes a variety of high performer conceptualizations, theoretical lenses, and methodological approaches to examine the main effects of high performers as well as the boundary conditions of these effects. However, the body of work on high performers has yet to be systematically reviewed to synthesize the current state of the high performer literature and build commonality across disciplines. In this multidisciplinary review, we first establish conceptual clarity on what a high performer is (and is not) and identify the conceptualization of high performers used in current research. We then use appraisal theories to create a framework to organize the cognitive, affective, and behavioral peer effects sparked by high performers as well as to build an integrative view of the psychological mechanisms through which peers interpret and react to high performers. Following this, we outline several boundary conditions of high performer peer effects, including the characteristics of high performers, peers, and the context in which high performers and peers interact. We further consider how the various operationalizations of high performers are associated with different peer effects. We conclude by identifying and elaborating several avenues for future research that may yield useful cross-disciplinary insights.

My manager endorsed my coworkers’ voice: Understanding observers’ positive and negative reactions to managerial endorsement of coworker voice.

“…On the other hand, our results also showed that managerial endorsement of coworker voice may trigger voice threat for observers, which may subsequently prompt avoidance-oriented CWB. These results parallel and build on research related how peers respond to high-performing coworkers (Campbell et al, 2017; Hendricks et al, 2023; Kim & Glomb, 2014; C. K. Lam et al, 2011).…”

“…Empirical evidence provides support for this idea, demonstrating that coworkers can pose significant threats to employees when employees feel that their coworker has obtained benefits, such as more relative status (Menon et al, 2006), as would be the case when a manager endorses coworker voice. Further, research has shown that employees view high-performing peers, or those who receive favorable voice endorsement from their manager, as a direct threat to their resources (Campbell et al, 2017;Hendricks et al, 2023). Even if the coworker does not receive such benefits immediately, research has shown that anticipated future benefits for coworkers, as foreshadowed by their receipt of managerial endorsement, can trigger employees to feel threatened (Reh et al, 2018).…”

Above the law? How motivated moral reasoning shapes evaluations of high performer unethicality.

“…Thus, when they get away with unethical behavior, their peers may be more likely to follow suit. This is especially troubling in light of evidence that high performer contributions receive greater attention and can shift workgroup norms (Dalton, 1948; Hendricks, et al, 2022; Lacetera et al, 2004) and are likely to be role-modeled when they are promoted to supervisory ranks (Kim & Makadok, 2022).…”

The impact of diversity on group decision-making in the face of the free-rider problem

“…In a review, Yaniv (2004, p. 75) state that 'a small number of opinions (e.g., 3-6) is typically sufficient to realize most of the accuracy gains obtainable by aggregation.' Another example is the relationship between team performance and the number of star performers, which has been extensively investigated in human resource management (Gula et al, 2021;Hendricks et al, 2023;Joo et al, 2022). The evidence suggests that hiring additional star performers yields diminishing returns across various employee teams and (Kameda et al, 2011;Lorge and Solomon, 1955), where x = number of other cooperators.…”