Shining with the Stars? Unearthing how group star proportion shapes non‐star performance

Abstract

Organizations grapple with how to position and manage star employees within and across workgroups. One critical question not yet well understood is how to optimize the influence of stars on non‐stars and specifically whether to concentrate together or spread out stars across workgroups. Furthermore, we lack knowledge of who is more likely to benefit from stars. To that end, we develop a theoretical model that introduces a new unit‐level concept—group star proportion (GSP)—to progress understanding of how the staffing of stars, within and across workgroups, influences non‐star performance. Invoking theories of vicarious learning, we explicate why GSP has a curvilinear relationship with non‐star performance. Specifically, GSP positively relates to non‐star performance up to a point at which there are diminishing returns. In Study 1, we tested these predictions in a field dataset in a healthcare system. In Study 2, we replicated these findings in a commercial real estate firm and expanded understanding of how GSP may serve as a cross‐level moderator of non‐star performance and two critical individual differences germane to learning: non‐star tenure and trait negative affect. Findings offer theoretical and practical insights into how stars might be of most benefit to their non‐star peers.

HRM’s financial value from obtaining more star performers

“…The perspective that HRM generates less value from obtaining more stars is further bolstered by studies indicating a possible inverted-U relationship between stars and outcomes (e.g. Call et al, 2020;Groysberg et al, 2011;Swaab et al, 2014). This research suggests that greater proportion of stars contributes positively to outcomes such as group performance or non-stars' individual performance, though the positive trend is followed by diminishing and then negative returns.…”

“…Specifically, to the effect of reducing theoretical parsimony, studies in the star literature have offered numerous and disparate explanations for stars' often curvilinear impact, such as disruptions caused by competition among stars to establish a clear status hierarchy (Groysberg et al, 2011); biases that lead managers to over-value top stars (Massey & Thaler, 2013); and stars' behaviors that reduce the learning of non-stars (un)intentionally (Call et al, 2020). Given such, small output differences among top stars may facilitate or allow these mechanisms to occur in the first place.…”

“…Given such, small output differences among top stars may facilitate or allow these mechanisms to occur in the first place. If stars have large differences in output, a clear status hierarchy would exist and prevent disruptive competition between stars who seek to establish a clear hierarchy (Groysberg et al, 2011); if top stars have large enough differences in output, managers' tendency to disproportionately value the contributions of top stars may be justified (Massey & Thaler, 2013); and large output differences among top stars likely mean that there are just one or few of those stars who serve as clear role models for non-stars, reducing inconsistent cues from stars about how to work (Call et al, 2020). Thus, our emphasis on small output differences among top stars serves as a broad theoretical component that is common across and, therefore, links together the many specific explanations for stars' curvilinear impact.…”

U.S. hegemony and international business research: Further considerations

“…For example, merely hiring a star researcher does not necessarily produce significant and sustainable levels of research productivity, particularly among the other members of the hiring institution's faculty. Bringing a top researcher into an institution can indeed have beneficial effects, such as increasing visibility and legitimacy for IB as an area of research, inspiring other researchers to pursue IB research at an enhanced level, expanding the foundation of research contacts and providing access to transnational knowledge networks, and encouraging collaboration (e.g., Call, Campbell, Dunford, Boswell, & Boss, 2020; Jons, 2009). However, such benefits are not guaranteed.…”

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

“…ABOVE THE LAW performance value by positively influencing peers' learning and performance (Call et al, 2021;Downes et al, 2021). The sum of their performance value can even be measurable as a source of competitive advantage at the firm level (Groysberg & Lee, 2009).…”