Promotion Systems and Organizational Performance: A Contingency Model

  • Steven E. Phelan
  • Zhiang Lin


This study explores the organizational impact of a variety of important promotion systems commonly practiced in organizations including up-or-out systems, absolute merit-based systems, relative merit-based systems, and seniority-based systems. Through the computer simulation of organizations in a distributed decision making setting, the results indicate that the effectiveness of any promotion system is dependent on a range of factors including the nature of the task environment, the design of the organizational structure, the frequency of monitoring, the criteria of performance, and the transferability of task knowledge. This study has implications not only for understanding organizational promotion systems from the contingency perspective, but also for bridging the fields of strategic human resource management and computational organization theory.

promotion systems organizational performance computer simulation contingency perspective 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aldrich, H.E. (1979), Organizations and Environment. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, G. (1997), “Antecedents and Outcomes of Promotion Systems, ” Human Resource Management, 36(2), 251–259.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. (1997), The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, G., M. Biggs and B. Holmstrom (1994), “The Internal Economics of the Firm: Evidence from Personnel Data, ” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4), 881–919.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, G. and B. Holmstrom (1995), “Internal Labor Markets: Too Many Theories, Too Few Facts, ” American Economic Review, 85(2), 255–259.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, G.P., M.C. Jensen and K.J. Murphy (1988), “Compensation and Incentives: Practice Vs. Theory, ” Journal of Finance, 43(3), 593–616.Google Scholar
  7. Barney, J. (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, ” Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.Google Scholar
  8. Barron, J.M. and M.A. Loewenstein (1985), “On Employer-Specific Information and Internal Labor Markets, ” Southern Economic Journal, 52(2), 431–445.Google Scholar
  9. Burton, R.M. and B. Obel (1995), “The Validity of Computational Models in Organization Science: From Model Realism to Purpose of the Model, ” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 57–71.Google Scholar
  10. Carley, K.M. and M.J. Prietula (Eds.) (1994), Computational Organization Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Carley, K.M. (1996), “Validating Computational Models, ” Working Paper, CASOS Institute, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  12. Carley, K.M. and Z. Lin (1997), “A Theoretical Study of Organizational Performance under Information Distortion, ” Management Science, 43(7), 976–997.Google Scholar
  13. Chan, W. (1996), “External RecruitmentVersus Internal Promotion, ” Journal of Labor Economics, 14(4), 555–570.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Dobson, J.R. (1988), “Seniority Promotion Systems—A Review, ” Personnel Review, 17(5), 19–28.Google Scholar
  16. Ferris, G.R., M.R. Buckley and G.M. Allen (1992), “Promotion Systems in Organizations, ”Human Resource Planning, 15, 47–68.Google Scholar
  17. Fuller, S.R. and V.L. Huber (1998), “Recruitment and Selection, ” in M. Poole and M. Warner (Eds.) The Handbook of Human Resource Management. International Thomson Business Press, London.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, R. and M. Waldman (1999), “The Theory of Wage and Promotion Dynamics inside Firms, ” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1321–1358.Google Scholar
  19. Glance, N.S., T. Hogg and B.A. Huberman (1997), “Training and Turnover in the Evolution of Organizations, ” Organization Science, 8(1), 84–96.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, R.E. (1988), “Fluctuations in Equilibrium Unemployment, ” American Economic Review, 78(2), 269–275.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, J.R. and G.R. Carroll (1991), “Keeping the Faith: A Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal Organizations, ” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 552–582.Google Scholar
  22. Harrison, J.R. (1998), The Concept of Simulation in Organizational Research, Paper Presented at the SCANCOR Conference, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  23. Hollenbeck, J.R., D.R. Ilgen, D.J. Sego and J. Hedlund (1995), “Multilevel Theory of Team Decision Making: Decision Performance in Teams Incorporating Distributed Expertise, ”Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 292–316.Google Scholar
  24. House, R., D.M. Rousseau and M. Thomas-Hunt (1995), “The Meso Paradigm:AFramework for the Integration of Micro and Macro Organizational Behavior, ” in L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw(Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 71–114.Google Scholar
  25. Landers, R.M., J.B. Rebitzer and L.J. Taylor (1996), “Rat Race Redux: Adverse Selection in the Determination of Work Hours in Law Firms, ” American Economic Review, 86(3), 329–348.Google Scholar
  26. Lant, T.K. (1994), “Computer Simulations of Organizations as Experiential Learning Systems: Implications for Organization Theory, ” in K.M. Carley and M.J. Prietula (Eds.) Computational Organization Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
  27. Lawrence, P.R. and J.W. Lorsch (1967), Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Graduate School of Business Administration, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Lazear, E.P. and S. Rosen (1981), “Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts, ” Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 841–864.Google Scholar
  29. Lazear, E.P. (1992), “The Job as a Concept, ” in W.J. Bruns (Ed.), Performance Measurement, Evaluation, and Incentives. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 183–215.Google Scholar
  30. Lin, Z. and K.M. Carley (1995), “Dycorp:AComputational Framework for Examining Organizational Performance under Dynamic Conditions, ” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 20(23), 193–217.Google Scholar
  31. Lin, Z. and K.M. Carley (1997), “Organizational Response: The Cost PerformanceTradeoff, ”Management Science, 43(2), 217–234.Google Scholar
  32. Lin, Z. and C. Hui (1999), “Should Lean Replace Mass Organization Systems: A Theoretical Examination from a Management Coordination Perspective, ” Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 45–80.Google Scholar
  33. Lin, Z. (2000), “Organizational Restructuring and the Impact of Knowledge Transfer, ” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 24(2), 129–149.Google Scholar
  34. Lounamaa, P.H. and J.G. March (1987), “Adaptive Coordination of a Learning Team, ” Management Science, 33(1), 107–123.Google Scholar
  35. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts (1992), Economics, Organization, and Management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  36. Mills, D.Q. (1985), “Seniority Versus Ability in Promotion Decisions, ” Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 38(3), 421–425.Google Scholar
  37. Mintzberg, H. (1983), Structures in Five: Designing Effective Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  38. Morris, T. and A. Pinnington (1998), “Promotion to Partner in Professional Service Firms, ” Human Relations, 51(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
  39. O'Flaherty, B. and A. Siow (1995), “Up-or-out Rules in the Market for Lawyers, ” Journal of Labor Economics, 13(4), 709–735.Google Scholar
  40. Ostrom, T.M. (1988), “Computer Simulation: The Third Symbol System, ”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 381–392.Google Scholar
  41. Pfeffer, J. and Y. Cohen (1984), “Determinants of Internal Labor Markets in Organizations, ” Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 550–572.Google Scholar
  42. Rousseau, D.M. and R.J. House (1994), “Meso Organizational Behavior: Avoiding the Fundamental Biases, ” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1, 13–30.Google Scholar
  43. Simon, H.A. (1973), “Applying Information Technology to Organizational Design, ” Public Administrative Review, 33, 268–278.Google Scholar
  44. Siow, A. (1995), “The Organization of the Market for Professors, ” Working Paper, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
  45. Taber, C.S. and R.J. Timpone (1996), Computational Modeling. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  46. Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Waldman, M. (1990), “Up-or-out Contracts: A Signaling Perspective, ” Journal of Labor Economics, 8(2), 230–250.Google Scholar
  48. Weick, K.E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  49. Weiss, G. (Ed.) (1999), Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  50. Wholey, D.R. (1985), “Determinants of Firm Internal Labor Markets in Large Law Firms, ” Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(3), 318–335.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven E. Phelan
  • Zhiang Lin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations