Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 459–477 | Cite as

Looking for Assistance in the Dark: Pay Secrecy, Expertise Perceptions, and Efficacious Help Seeking Among Members of Newly Formed Virtual Work Groups

  • Elena Belogolovsky
  • Peter BambergerEmail author
  • Valeria Alterman
  • David T. Wagner
Original Paper



Adopting an information processing perspective, we argue that in pay-for-performance contexts, pay secrecy may adversely affect the ability of members of newly formed, virtual work groups to source assistance from those most able to provide it, referred to here as efficacious help-seeking.


We conducted a repeated-measures laboratory study in which one hundred forty-six participants interacted with three confederates, each with a varying level of skill. Participants’ help-seeking behaviors were recorded and efficacious help-seeking was examined as a function of the four pay transparency conditions.


Our findings reveal that accurate perception of task expertise of the highest paid work group member mediates the impact of pay transparency on members’ efficacious help-seeking. The findings also show that the positive relationship between pay transparency and efficacious help-seeking is amplified for average and high performers and that for these same individuals a shift from secrecy to transparency is accompanied by a significant increase in efficacious help-seeking.


This study extends pay secrecy research by shifting the focus away from fairness, instrumentality, and sorting and toward information processing. More specifically, the study highlights how pay and pay comparisons can influence inter-relating behaviors in organizations in general and expertise identification and help seeking behaviors in particular.


We believe this is the first study to directly examine how the availability of pay comparison information determines inter-relating behaviors in organizations. The study offers insight for pay policy in organizations that rely upon employee help-seeking, showing that efficacious help-seeking can be enhanced through transparent pay practices. This is particularly evident in the virtual teams examined in the present study.


Pay secrecy Help-seeking Virtual team 


  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G., & Yellen, J. (1990). The fair wage-effort hypothesis and unemployment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105, 255–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, A. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anscombe, F. J. (1948). The transformation of Poisson, binomial and negative-binomial data. Biometrika, 35, 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balkin, D. B., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (1990). Matching compensation and organizational strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bamberger, P. (2009). Employee help-seeking: Antecedents, consequences and new insights for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 28, 49–98.Google Scholar
  8. Bamberger, P. A., & Belogolovsky, E. (2010). Pay secrecy and individual task performance. Personnel Psychology, 63, 965–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and non-anxious individuals: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1989). Effects of dependence, dependency threats and pay secrecy on managerial pay allocations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707–721.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Belman, D., & Heywood, J. S. (1997). Sheepskin effects by cohort: Implications of job matching in a signaling model. Oxford Economic Papers, 49, 623–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Belogolovsky, E., & Bamberger, P. (2014). Signaling in secret: Pay for performance and the incentive and sorting effects of pay secrecy. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1706–1733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Bonner, B. L. (2004). Expertise in group problem solving: Recognition, social combination, and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R., & Dalal, R. S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 719–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49, 432–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 70–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 557–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bunderson, J. S., & Barton, M. A. (2011). Status cues and expertise assessment in groups: How group members size one another up … and why it matters. In J. L. Pearce (Ed.), Status in management and organizations (pp. 215–237). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Card, D., Mas, A., Moretti, E., & Saez, E. (2012). Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries on job satisfaction. American Economic Review, 102, 2981–3003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 655–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2014). Affective primacy in intraorganizational task networks. Organization Science, 26, 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, K. (2006) The pulse of the profession: 2006–07, Salary Budget Survey. Workspan (September), 23–26.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 287–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Colella, A., Paetzold, R. L., Zardkoohi, A., & Wesson, M. J. (2007). Exposing pay secrecy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Colquitt, J. A. (2008). From the editors publishing laboratory research in AMJ: A question of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 616–620.Google Scholar
  28. Cornally, N., & McCarthy, G. (2011). Help-seeking behaviour for the treatment of chronic pain. British Journal of Community Nursing, 16, 90. Retrieved from
  29. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cross, R., & Borgatti, S. P. (2004). The ties that share: Relational characteristics that facilitate information seeking. Social Capital and Information Technology, 137–161. Retrieved from
  31. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Falk, A., & Fehr, E. (2003). Why labour market experiments? Labour Economics, 10, 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Falk, A., & Heckman, J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326, 535–538.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flynn, F. J., & Lake, V. K. B. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 128–143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Frey, B. S., Schaffner, M., Schmidt, S. L., & Torgler, B. (2013). Do employees care about their relative income position? Behavioral evidence focusing on performance in professional team sports. Social Science Quarterly, 94, 912–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Furnham, A., & Argyle, M. (1998). The psychology of money. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Futrell, C. M., & Jenkins, O. C. (1978). Pay secrecy versus pay disclosure for salesmen: A longitudinal study. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gerhart, B., Rynes, S. L., & Fulmer, I. (2009). Pay and performance: Individuals, groups, and executives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 251–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Griffith, T. L., & Neale, M. A. (2001). Information processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory. In B. M. Staw & R. L. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 379–421). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  42. Grundy, E. (2006). Ageing and vulnerable elderly people: European perspectives. Ageing and Society, 26, 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hofmann, D., Lei, Z., & Grant, A. (2009). Seeking help in the shadow of a doubt: The sensemaking processes underlying how nurses decide who to ask for advice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1261–1274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37, 82–106.Google Scholar
  47. Hollingshead, A. B., & Fraidin, S. N. (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR)/Rockefeller Survey of Economic Security. (2011). Pay secrecy and wage discrimination. Fact Sheet #C382.Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.Google Scholar
  49. Jenkins, G. D., Jr, 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, 777–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2012). Getting the right connections? The consequences and antecedents of social networks in newcomer socialization. In C. Wanberg (Ed.), The oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 78–96). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Jones, D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). How fairness perceptions can change: A dynamic model of fairness. Organizational Psychology Review, 3, 138–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 202–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar Strauss & Giroux.Google Scholar
  54. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2004). Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In M. Augier & J. G. March (Eds.), Models of a man: Essays in memory of Herbert A. Simon (pp. 411–432). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–294). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology and measurement. Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Larkin, I., Pierce, L., & Gino, F. (2012). The psychological costs of pay-for-performance: Implications for the strategic compensation of employees. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1194–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lawler, E. E. (1965). Managers’ perceptions of their subordinates’ pay and of their superiors’ pay. Personnel Psychology, 18, 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lawler, E. E. (1966a). Managers’ attitudes toward how their pay is and should be determined. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 273–279.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Lawler, E. E. (1966b). The mythology of management compensation. California Management Review, 9, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lawler, E. E. (2003). Reward practices and performance management system effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 396–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Leventhal, G. S., Michaels, J. W., & Sanford, C. (1972). Inequity and interpersonal conflict: Reward allocation and secrecy about reward as methods of preventing conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 88–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Levy, M. (2003). Are rich people smarter? Journal of Economic Theory, 110, 42–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lewis, K., & Herndon, B. (2011). Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22, 1254–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Little, T. D., Preacher, K. J., Selig, J. P., & Card, N. A. (2007). New developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Liu, S., Wang, M., Bamberger, P. A., Shi, J., & Bacharach, S. (2015). The dark side of socialization: A longitudinal investigation of newcomer alcohol use. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 334–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lloyd-Sherlock, P. (2006). Identifying vulnerable older people: Insights from Thailand. Ageing and Society, 26, 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Locke, E. A. (Ed.). (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  73. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). Role of gender, interpersonal orientation, and self-presentation in distributive-justice behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 598–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in over generalizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Milkovich, G. T., & Anderson, P. H. (1972). Management compensation and secrecy policies. Personnel Psychology, 25, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Morrison, E. W., & Vancouver, J. B. (2000). Within-person analysis of information seeking: The effects of perceived costs and benefits. Journal of Management, 26, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Mueller, J. S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Why seeking help from teammates is a blessing and a curse: A theory of help seeking and individual creativity in team contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 263–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Statistical analysis with latent variables. In Mplus user’s guide (4th–7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. Retrieved from
  84. Nadler, A., Ellis, S., & Bar, I. (2003). To seek or not to seek: The relationship between help seeking and job performance evaluations as moderated by task-relevant expertise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Nahum-Shani, I., & Bamberger, P. A. (2011). Explaining the variable effects of social support on work-based stressor–strain relations: The role of perceived pattern of support exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 49–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. Pitariu, A. H., & Ployhart, R. E. (2010). Explaining change: Theorizing and testing dynamic mediated longitudinal relationships. Journal of Management, 36, 405–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ren, Y., & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 189–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science, 46, 612–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for Chi square statistics in covariance structure analysis. In Proceedings of the business and economic statistics section of the American Statistical Association (pp. 308–313). Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  90. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications to developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  91. Spence, A. M. (1973). Time and communication in economic and social interaction. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 651–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Swim, J., Scott, E., Sechrist, G., Campbell, B., & Stangor, C. (2003). The role of intent and harm in judgments of prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 944–959.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Van de Wiel, M. W., Van den Bossche, P., Janssen, S., & Jossberger, H. (2011). Exploring deliberate practice in medicine: How do physicians learn in the workplace? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 16, 81–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  96. Van der Rijt, J., Van den Bossche, P., Van de Wiel, M. W. J., De Maeyer, S., Gijselaers, W. H., & Segers, M. S. R. (2013). Asking for help: A relational perspective on help seeking in the workplace. Vocations and Learning, 6, 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Van Der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 877–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Waldman, M. (1984). Job assignments, signaling, and efficiency. The Rand Journal of Economics, 15, 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In G. Mullen & G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wills, T. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1991). Interpersonal analysis of the help-seeking process. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 350–375). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  101. Woodzicka, J., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yoon, K., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2010). Cultural stereotyping, convergent expectations, and performance in cross-cultural collaborations. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 1, 160–167.Google Scholar
  103. Zhang, Z., Hempel, P. S., Han, Y., & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Transactive memory system links work team characteristics and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1722–1730.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Belogolovsky
    • 1
  • Peter Bamberger
    • 2
    Email author
  • Valeria Alterman
    • 3
  • David T. Wagner
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Human Resource Studies, ILR SchoolCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.School of Business AdministrationTel Aviv UniversityRamat AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Management, Warrington College of Business AdministrationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of Management, Lundquist College of BusinessUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations