Star Performers in Twenty‐First Century Organizations

Abstract

We argue that changes in the nature of work in 21st‐century organizations have led to the emergence of star performers—a few individuals who contribute a disproportionate amount of output. We describe how stars negate the long‐held belief that the distribution of individual performance is normal and, instead, suggest an underlying power law distribution. In addition, we offer 9 propositions to guide future empirical research on star performers and an underlying power law distribution of individual performance. We describe how the presence of stars is likely to affect all individual‐, team‐, and firm‐level management theories addressing individual performance directly or indirectly, but focus on specific implications for those addressing human capital, turnover, compensation, downsizing, leadership, teamwork, corporate entrepreneurship, and microfoundations of strategy. In addition, we discuss methodological considerations necessary to carry out our proposed research agenda. Finally, we discuss how a consideration of star performers has important implications for management practice.

Workload, Risks, and Goal Framing as Antecedents of Shortcut Behaviors

“…Furthermore, there are often multiple means to achieve a goal, meaning a number of different behaviors may be used to achieve the same results or outcomes (e.g., Huang and Zhang 2013;Kruglanski et al 2011). However, organizations are often primarily concerned with results, rather than behaviors (Aguinis and O'Boyle 2014). This emphasis on results may set the stage for highly risky shortcut behaviors.…”

Pay Dispersion

“…But other specifications are possible. As Aguinis & O'Boyle (2013) discuss at length, twenty-first-century organizations may be led in large part by star performers, or those who contribute a disproportionate amount of output relative to others. As such, other operationalizations of dispersion (e.g., power laws or functions) that map more effectively to the distribution of inputs may be more applicable.…”

Cumulative Advantage: Conductors and Insulators of Heavy‐Tailed Productivity Distributions and Productivity Stars

“…In contrast, a heavy‐tailed distribution implies that productivity is primarily vested in a small number of workers at the tail of the distribution rather than a large number of workers in the middle. Accordingly, “substantial improvements in average workers may provide little value to the organization as a whole, while very small changes in the performance of an elite worker may determine whether a firm survives or dies” (Aguinis & O'Boyle, , pp. 337–338).…”

“…O'Boyle and Aguinis () and Aguinis and O'Boyle () adopted the results‐based definition of performance because “a focus on results rather than behaviors is most appropriate when (a) workers are skilled in the needed behaviors, (b) behaviors and results are obviously related, and (c) there are many ways to do the job right” (Aguinis & O'Boyle, , p. 316). Adopting a similar approach, Minbashian and Luppino () examined the central issue of within‐person variability in performance by using the results‐based definition (i.e., tennis players’ points won in a match).…”