Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individual Employees’ Responses to Group Incentives: The Moderating Role of Innovation

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study examined the mediating role of perceived organizational support (POS) in the relationship between group-incentive participation and organizational commitment. The study also investigated the moderating role of innovation in the relationship between group-incentive participation and POS and the relationship between group-incentive participation and organizational commitment.

Design/Methodology/Approach

The proposed hypotheses were tested by hierarchical linear modeling by means of survey data that were collected in South Korea in 2008.

Findings

The results showed that the relationship between group-incentive participation and organizational commitment was fully mediated by POS. Cross-level analyses revealed that group-incentive participation had stronger relationships with POS and organizational commitment in more innovative companies than in less innovative companies.

Implications

These findings contribute to the literature by identifying the characteristics of organizations in which group-incentive participation is more effective. In particular, innovative companies could benefit from adopting group-incentive practices because these practices are more strongly related to POS and organizational commitment in more innovative companies.

Originality/Value

Whereas previous studies on group incentives have mainly focused on the effects of group incentives at the organizational level, this study bridged the gap between macro- and microapproaches through multilevel analyses. This study is unique in that it examined the vertical fit between group incentives and organizational characteristics while focusing on individual employees’ perceptions and attitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 187–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E., & Oliver, R. L. (1987). Perspectives on behavior-based versus outcome-based salesforce control systems. Journal of Marketing, 51, 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, E., Baily, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, J. B., & Huntley, C. L. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning curve: Assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance under gainsharing. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1159–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Lee, S. Y., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (1996). Contextual analysis of performance impacts of outcome-based incentive compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 920–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Fuller, J. (2003). Are chameleons good citizens? A longitudinal study of the relationship between self-monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(2), 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, M. K. (1993). Organizational innovation and substandard performance: When is necessity the mother of innovation? Organization Science, 4(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli, P., & Neumark, D. (2001). Do “high-performance” work practices improve establishment-level outcomes? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54(4), 737–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, W. N. (1994). Employee participation programs, group-based incentives, and company performance: A union-nonunion comparison. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47, 594–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle-Shapiro, J., Morrow, P. C., Richardson, R., & Dunn, S. R. (2002). Using profit sharing to enhance employee attitudes: A longitudinal examination of the effects on trust and commitment. Human Resource Management, 41(4), 423–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cravens, D. W., Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W., & Young, C. E. (1993). Behavior-based and outcome-based salesforce control systems. Journal of Marketing, 57, 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R., & Becker, S. (1978). Innovation in organization. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5), 693–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2009). Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 650–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, M. D., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1997). The effectiveness of organization-wide compensation strategies in technology intensive firms. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8(2), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn, J. H., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Employee perceptions of the fairness of work group incentive pay plans. Journal of Management, 24(4), 469–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Roades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J. (1999). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1026–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fernie, S., & Metcalf, D. (1995). Participation, contingent pay, representation and workplace performance: Evidence from Great Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33(3), 380–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Compensation, organizational strategy, and firm performance. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, R. K., & Moore, B. E. (1976). Factors affecting acquisition of beliefs about a reward system. Human Relations, 29(6), 571–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanlon, S. C., & Taylor, R. R. (1991). An examination of changes in work group communication behaviors following installation of a gainsharing plan. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 238–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollensbe, E. C., & Guthrie, J. P. (2000). Group pay-for-performance plans: The role of spontaneous goal setting. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 864–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., & Prennushi, G. (1997). The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. The American Economic Review, 87(3), 291–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Rivero, J. C. (1989). Organizational characteristics as predictors of personnel practices. Personnel Psychology, 42, 727–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, J. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 777–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R. T. (1992). The effects of improshare on productivity. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45(2), 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerin, R., Mahajan, V., & Varadarajan, P. (1990). Contemporary perspectives on strategic market planning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, L. D. (1993). Profit sharing: Does it make a difference?. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, S., Kim, M. S., Kang, S., & Kim, M. U. (2008). Employee reactions to gainsharing under seniority pay systems: The mediating effect of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 757–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnan, M., & St-Onge, S. (2005). The impact of profit sharing on the performance of financial services firms. Journal of Management Studies, 42(4), 761–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and metal-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing strategic human resources systems. Organizational Dynamics, 13(1), 36–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R., Snow, C., Meyer, A., & Coleman, H. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 546–562.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milkovich, G. T. (1988). A strategic perspective on compensation management. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., Cozzens, M. D., & Contractor, N. S. (1992). Communication and motivational predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organization Science, 3(2), 250–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 313–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, A., West, M. A., & Patterson, M. G. (2005). Do organizational climate and competitive strategy moderate the relationship between human resource management and productivity? Journal of Management, 31(4), 492–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, R. (2012). Cognitive and affective approaches to employee participation: Integration of the two approaches. Journal of World Business, 47, 450–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, R., Appelbaum, E., & Kruse, D. (2010). Employee involvement and group incentives in manufacturing companies: A multi-level analysis. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(3), 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, S. K. (2003). Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the mediating role of work characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 620–634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, S. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The impact of financial and nonfinancial incentives on business-unit outcomes over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 156–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2004). Simple intercepts, simple slopes, and regions of significance in HLM 2-way interactions. http://people.ku.edu/~preacher/interact/hlm2.htm. Accessed 10 June 2011.

  • Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825–836.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, O., McMillan, A., Chadwick, K., & Dwyer, S. (2003). Employing an innovation strategy in racially diverse workforces. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1(3), 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, L. M., & Barksdale, K. (1998). Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employment relationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 731–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. M., Beyer, J., & Trice, H. M. (1978). Assessing personal, role, and organizational predictors of managerial commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 380–396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, M., & Chenevert, D. (2008). Influence of compensation strategies in Canadian technology-intensive firms on organizational and human resources performance. Group & Organization Management, 33(3), 269–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van De Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne, T. M., Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1995). Gainsharing and mutual monitoring: A combined agency-organizational justice interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 881–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management, 27, 515–535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youndt, M. A., Dean, J. W., & Lepak, D. P. (1996). Human resource management, manufacturing strategy, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 836–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Kwangwoon University, 26 Kwangwoon-gil, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-701, Korea

    Rhokeun Park & Jungsik Kim

Authors
  1. Rhokeun Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jungsik Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rhokeun Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Park, R., Kim, J. Individual Employees’ Responses to Group Incentives: The Moderating Role of Innovation. J Bus Psychol 28, 175–187 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9270-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9270-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation