Learning and Reinforcement Theory

Altman, Steven; Valenzi, Enzo; Hodgetts, Richard M.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-054750-0.50010-9

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also a high level of favoritism in performance appraisal was related to low levels of pay system effectiveness, as expected. However, we expected compression in performance appraisal (such as in anticipation of evenly distributed pay raises that would preserve group climate), would be perceived as effective since it might be considered to further the interests of the employees as individuals or as a group (Altman et al, 1985). We did not find support for this notion, but nevertheless, we would like to emphasize that the compression in performance appraisal was not perceived as having a negative impact on pay system effectiveness either.…”

Section: Perceptions Of Politics and Fairness In Merit Pay 19contrasting

confidence: 50%

“…However, some scholars have noted that organizational politics is necessary for the survival of the organization and those who operate in them, and can sometimes be perceived to be benefiting the organization as a whole (e.g., Pfeffer, 1981;Ammetera et al, 2002). Accordingly, the aims of organizational politics have been classified as follows: (a) to protect and/or enhance an individual's self-interests, and/or (b) to further the interests or goals of another person or group (Altman et al, 1985).…”

Section: Defining Organizational Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceptions of politics and fairness in merit pay

Salimäki¹,

Jämsén²

2010

Journal of Managerial Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Employee perceptions of politics and fairness were studied in a work setting where a new merit pay system had recently been implemented.Design/methodology/approach: Based on the literature on organizational politics, equity, procedural justice, and social exchange theory, we expected that employee perceptions of politics and fairness are associated with the perceptions of merit pay effectiveness. The results are based on employee survey responses from three governmental organizations (N=367) that had implemented analogous merit pay systems. Findings:Hierarchical moderated regression results indicated that perceptions of politics and fairness distinctively and interactively predicted whether the pay system was perceived effective in achieving its objectives. The results suggest that some forms of politics in performance appraisals (e.g., compression) might be perceived less detrimental than others (e.g., favoritism). In a high politics environment, the pay system effectiveness varied as a function of the level of distributive justice. Voice in the pay system development only mattered in a situation where there was a low level of organizational politics. Research implications/limitations:One of the main limitations of this study is its reliance on cross-sectional data. Future research should complement employee perceptions about pay system effectiveness with objective data from the organizations studied. Research on the effect of contextual factors, such as national culture on the motives in and reactions to organizational politics, is desired. Practical implications:The result suggests that the adopted merit pay systems were not ineffective or detrimental per se, but that the effectiveness varied as a function of the established political and fairness climates at different levels of the organization. Originality/value:This study contributes to the discussion on what are the conditions under which politics and fairness are antithetical, and when they are interactively associated with outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Perceptions Of Politics and Fairness In Merit Pay 19contrasting

confidence: 50%

Section: Defining Organizational Politicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of politics and fairness in merit pay

Salimäki¹,

Jämsén²

2010

Journal of Managerial Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Status can be viewed in terms of an assigned position giving a person legitimate power within a formal organization (Altman, Valenzi, & Hodgetts, 1985) or as a by-product associated with characteristics such as sex, race, age, and occupation (Webster & Driskell, 1978). In either case, it generally operates within discussion groups both directly, with higher conformity to those of high status, and indirectly, with high-status individuals more likely to contribute to discussion and those contributions more likely to be accepted by other group members (Bass & Wurster, 1953a, 1953b; Larson, Christensen, Abbott, & Franz, 1996; Saunders, Robey, & Vaverek, 1994; Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995).…”

Section: Factors Influencing Social Influence Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Interactive Input–Process–Output Model of Social Influence in Decision-Making Groups

Pavitt

2014

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The first goal of this article is to demonstrate that the dichotomy between informational and normative influence in group decision making is long outdated and should be replaced with a distinction among compliance, comparison, and argumentation influence processes. The second goal of this article is to use this distinction as the basis for a literature review of the impact of various input factors on social influence during small group discussion. The third goal of this article is to present the Simplified Model of Group Social Influence Processes, an interactive input–process–output model relevant to decision-making groups. The article ends with a discussion of the implications of this model for future research and further model development.

show abstract

“…Scott (1992) refers internal environment to the nature of the tasks in terms of task variability, task difficulty and task interdependency, as well as organizational structure in terms of its complexity, degree of centralization and communication network. 15 External environment is described by Altman, Valenzi and Hodgetts (1985) to include effects of the degree of uncertainty, complexity and societal pressure. 16 According to , the roles and functions of governing boards are dependent upon the impact of external groups and internal structure of the organization.…”

Section: Contingency Perspective (Extrinsic Influence)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 External environment is described by Altman, Valenzi and Hodgetts (1985) to include effects of the degree of uncertainty, complexity and societal pressure. 16 According to , the roles and functions of governing boards are dependent upon the impact of external groups and internal structure of the organization. 17 He gives some examples.…”

Section: Contingency Perspective (Extrinsic Influence)mentioning

confidence: 99%