How Leaders Can Overcome Roadblocks to Creativity

Three Types of Pay Transparency Are Changing the Game

By Daniel Butcher

While there isn’t a nationwide pay-transparency law in the United States—at least not yet—10 states, several cities, and even one county (Westchester, New York) have such regulations. That means organizations may need to adjust how they communicate about pay depending on where they’re based and where they operate.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said one type of transparency is letting employees freely talk about their pay with one another. That’s been protected by U.S. federal law since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935.

“Most employees don’t know that they have the right to talk about their pay with other employees—that’s part of the NLRA. Still, companies discourage it, and in fact, some companies go too far in discouraging it so that they’re actually breaking the law,” Bamberger said.

“There’s very little merit to stopping employee disclosure, particularly since we now have things like Glassdoor, which really make it easy for employees to find out what others are earning in return for disclosing their own compensation,” he said.

In the second type of pay transparency, employers disclose compensation ranges to current and prospective employees.

“Laws in more than a dozen U.S. states and several cities are pushing for some degree of partial transparency with mandatory employer disclosure of pay ranges,” Bamberger said.“Going beyond that, where it’s not ranges that employers show, but rather actual individual rates of pay, can be potentially risky.

“Our studies have found that letting employees see how much coworkers make tends to have some pretty detrimental effects, whether it comes to malicious envy or even counterproductive work behavior,” he said. “The comp ranges not so much, but revealing detail about how much specific individuals are making can be problematic, so you have to be very careful about how you go about doing it.

“There are some success stories that I’ve written about in a book that I wrote about pay transparency, but it can be problematic.”

The third type is procedural pay transparency, from which Bamberger and his research colleagues have found only positive outcomes.

“That is being open and transparent about every aspect of the pay system in your organization, telling employees about the basis of the compensation structure, for example, what are the criteria for increasing bonuses? How were bonuses calculated this past year? How are differential pay rates by levels in the organization determined?” Bamberger said.

“Most employees don’t have a clue as to what their benefits are or how compensation levels are determined in the organization—employee pay knowledge is really minimal,” he said.

“Where organizations enhance this procedural pay transparency, perceptions of justice and fairness increased dramatically, and that has a wide range of beneficial effects and implications on retention, social exchange and reciprocity among coworkers, and giving back to the organization.”

Mentors Influence How Much College Grads Drink

By Daniel Butcher

The quality of mentorship can be a key factor in early-career professionals surviving and thriving at an organization. And more specifically, senior executives’ alcohol use, especially while entertaining clients, has a big influence on junior employees’ drinking habits.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that for at least the three years after graduation, alcohol consumption levels typically don’t change much. But there’s a caveat.

“We do find a couple of factors that are instrumental in getting alcohol consumption to move, which gives managers some clues as to what might be done to speed up that maturing out process for junior employees and hopefully reduce the risk of managers having to deal with people with problem drinking,” Bamberger said. “This is a soft side of the socialization process when these young adults come into the organization, so some of the most instrumental factors have to do with mentoring programs, veteran employees who are there to support the newcomers.

“You have to be a little bit careful there, because we did another study in China, where we found that, for employees in sales and sales-support occupations who are social connectors, post-college alcohol consumption moves in the wrong direction,” he said. “Many young people coming into these positions within three months after graduation show patterns of hazardous drinking.

“We demonstrate that, in such cases, their ‘mentors’ are their clients who end up ‘teaching’ them how critical it is to drink in order to build trust and close the deal—now, this may be more of a sales-department client-related phenomenon, and it may be more intense in China than other parts of the world.”

In China, it’s well-known that salespeople can’t close a deal unless they show their clients a good time the night before a meeting. Such occasions often include heavy drinking. However, Bamberger notes that many companies based in many countries worldwide, including across Europe and the United States, have salespeople and clients who also have behavioral patterns like that.

“The socialization [process] is [influenced by] mentoring by certain individuals, which can be problematic,” Bamberger said. “But our study with a college students in the U.S. finds that where you have that kind of support, particularly with newcomers mentored by veterans with low or moderate levels of drinking, you can expedite the pace at which young adults mature out of this pattern of a high level of alcohol consumption.

“There are other factors and things that managers can do [to help expedite that maturation process] as well, some of them having less of an effect, including a review of alcohol-drinking policies as part of the orientation program—our findings are that that doesn’t do very much,” he said.

“Managers do need to look at what else worked to reduce problem drinking among their younger team members.”

Pay Transparency Boosts Performance, Retention of Top Performers

By Daniel Butcher

Pay transparency laws can motivate star employee stay with companies and boost their performance, while spurring poor-performing working to quit.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University has conducted extensive research on pay transparency, including experiments to study the implications of pay transparency and secrecy on turnover.

“We found that pay transparency generated higher retention for higher performers, but other studies done by economists found that transparency is associated with higher rates of turnover, in other words, lower retention—so we have a disconnect there,” Bamberger said.

“But there are some indications that the turnover was higher among low performers, whereas, among high performers, that transparency didn’t generate a higher rate of turnover; in those studies, transparency may not have generated higher retention, like we found, but most of the turnover that those researchers found in their field study was with lower performers,” he said.

In other words, it’s a win-win situation for leaders and managers: Greater compensation transparency does not tend to encourage high-performing (and presumably well-paid) employees to leave the organization, while it does give a nudge to low-performing (and presumably modestly paid) employees to seek employment elsewhere.

“When workers don’t know what their colleagues are making, natural biases cause many to underestimate what we call ‘instrumentality perceptions,’ the instrumental role of extra effort to achieve the right incentive benefits in driving returns,” Bamberger said. “Their motivation is lower when pay is secret, and the result is, over time, a lower growth curve in performance.

“The slope of improvement is flatter when workers don’t know how much money colleagues earn than it is when pay is transparent and they can see how they’re doing relative to others,” he said.

The main takeaway is that pay transparency boosts performance and retention of top performers while leading to turnover of poor and middling performers.

Pay Transparency May Breed Malicious Envy

By Daniel Butcher

Overall, researchers have found that pay transparency benefits organizations with fair compensation structures by incentivizing top performers to continue working hard and reducing turnover of talented contributors. But in certain situations, it can breed envy of high earners and undermine organizational culture.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University explained that envy can be either benign or malicious, with benign envy increasing a person’s motivation to help others, while malicious envy tends to decrease motivation. Bamberger said that in cases he studied where pay transparency bred malicious envy among colleagues, the frequency of employees helping one another decreased.

“So if I’m envious of you, and I can see that you’re having difficulties at work, will I help without you coming to me and asking for assistance? Will I come to you and say, ‘Hey, I can see you’re having some problems, here’s advice or some type of information that could help you solve some of the problems that you’re experiencing?’” Bamberger said.

“I’m less likely to do that if I’m feeling envy toward you, and I’m more likely to feel envy toward you under conditions of pay transparency,” he said.

“For people who are natural helpers, it won’t make much of a difference, but for most people, particularly among those who are more competitive or have less prosocial motivation, it can make a big difference.”

Some business leaders and managers complain that transparency is problematic, because it makes people jealous, but Bamberger and his colleagues didn’t buy that argument. Their hypothesis was that people are jealous whether pay is transparent or not, and they imagine what other people’s pay is and base their jealousy on that.

“Whether or not employees see other people’s pay, it’s still a basis for jealousy, because they believe the worst,” Bamberger said. “The difference when pay is transparent is that it’s slammed in your face, and you can’t deny it, and therefore, it’s particularly in that case where the malicious envy can be sufficiently robust to be problematic, while one of these problems was reduced unsolicited helping among coworkers.”

Transparency Helps Orgs that Pay Employees Fairly

By Daniel Butcher

Organizations with merit-based raises and bonuses deemed equitable by employees benefit from pay transparency by incentivizing top-tier performers to put in maximum effort and stay at the organization, while encouraging many bottom-tier performers to look for new jobs.

“The bottom line, what we found is that people’s perceptions of the fairness of pay in their organization had a big impact on the degree to which transparency was associated with higher or lower rates of turnover,” Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said. “And a lot of that can be explained by people’s perceptions of trust.

“Where employees have a sense that pay is distributed fairly, you get a lot of benefits from pay transparency with regard to reduced turnover, because essentially, in most cases, where people believe that pay is fair, pay transparency is showing that the pay is, in fact, fair,” he said.

“And it’s driving higher levels of trust, which encourage people to stay in the organization, and in those situations where people are feeling that the pay is unfair, it’s typically people who are performing less well and are rewarded less well, transparency can be problematic, because then you’re actually making it obvious to them that they’re not doing as well and they’re likely to leave to look for greener pastures.”

In this way, Bamberger and colleagues were able to explain inconsistent findings regarding pay transparency and turnover in prior studies. They explained these mixed effects by showing that pay transparency can both increase and reduce turnover.

“For people who are performing well in an organization and getting those higher rewards and feel that their pay is fair, transparency drives higher retention, but for those who are feeling that their pay is unfair, perhaps because they’re getting lower rewards, typically transparency can actually drive higher rates of turnover,” he said.

Bamberger and his fellow researchers looked at employees’ overall perceptions of pay fairness, regardless of what their frame of reference was in terms of level of seniority or job title.

“What we found is when the two are aligned, high transparency with high perceptions of justice, they’re getting higher retention,” he said. “When there’s high transparency with lower perceptions of justice, we were seeing higher levels of turnover.”

Sharing Info, Workloads, Positive Feeback Boosts Productivity

By Daniel Butcher

Leaders who can install processes for effective, timely information-sharing, fair workload distribution, and civil communication—including positive feedback—foster the best collaboration and productivity among team members.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that lackluster productivity is often a result of poor information-sharing and workload-sharing behaviors.

“Team processes are hard; people can’t always pick up the signals that they need to,” Bamberger said. “For example, if they have a piece of information that someone else needs, when should they pass it on to this other person? A nurse has a test result; when should she pass it on to the to the team leader or attending physician?

“If she passes it on too early, she’s going to disrupt what they’re doing, which clearly affects their performance, but if she passes it on too late, it could be deadly, so timing and synchrony of such tasks are crucial,” he said.

Incivility and rudeness also undermine productivity, while civility and kindness tend to boost it.

“In research on medical teams, we demonstrated that when people experience gratitude at work it can often, but not always, have beneficial implications,” Bamberger said. “A lot depends on the source of the gratitude and the nature of the task at hand.

“In one experiment, we had the three teams: a control condition, one that viewed a video before they started the day from a senior neonatologist talking about how grateful he is to everybody in the field for doing the wonderful work they do to save these babies, which had nothing in terms of a productivity boost, but then we had a third group where we had a mother of a preemie talk about how grateful she was to the medical team that saved her child, and that had massive positive effects,” he said.

“We demonstrate what that does to the team interaction through the implications based on a theory in cognitive science called [Fredrickson’s]broaden-and-build, which explains how positive emotions have beneficial effects on people’s ability to be flexible in their thinking, to absorb more information, and things like that.”

Bamberger and colleagues also demonstrate that the effects were much stronger when a mother expressed gratitude than when a senior colleague did.

Sharing positive customer feedback

Business leaders and managers can leverage these insights to improve their effectiveness.

“They can demonstrate gratitude themselves; it does make intuitive sense that if managers and leaders behave with civility and politeness, then that may set an example for the rank-and-file employees to do the same, but they can encourage customers and clients or patients to say ‘thank you’ directly,” Bamberger said. “If you like the way a flight attendant treated you on a flight, you’re supposed to write the company, but what if you were actually put in direct contact with the flight attendant and were able to express the gratitude directly?

“Our evidence suggests that that’s going to have a much stronger effect than a manager saying, ‘You got three positive letters this week,’” he said. “Setting up systems for customers to directly express positive feedback has the potential to significantly boost employee morale and performance.”

Rudeness Doesn’t Motivate Workers—Quite the Opposite

By Daniel Butcher

Some business leaders and managers resort to barbs or even shouting to motivate staff members, but research shows that a coercive leadership style is counterproductive. In fact, civility leads to improved team cohesion and performance, while rudeness hurts workers’ performance.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that several research papers on the subject explore the implications that emotion-laden events in organizations have on interpersonal relations and team dynamics. In a nutshell, rudeness creates a huge distraction that undermines productivity.

“For example, why can’t you text and drive at the same time? When you’re driving, the reason you don’t text is because—aside from it being against the law—you’re distracted,” Bamberger said. “It’s a complex process to text—it takes your attention, so you have limited cognitive resources, and driving is also complex.

“Whatever goes to the texting is not available for driving, and the result could be death,” he said.

What’s the connection between texting while driving and leadership style, as well as interactions between coworkers? Rudeness and even mild incivility are actually highly emotional events that occur frequently in the workplace.

“Many, many employees experience rudeness at work, and it’s rather ambiguous,” Bamberger said. “It’s not like being bullied or attacked physically, but in response to rudeness, you’ve got to try to figure out what is threatening to some degree, but you don’t know how threatening it is.

“And precisely because of that, and largely unconsciously, your brain is engaging and trying to determine the degree of threat,” he said. “That’s not a mindset that’s conducive to analysis, attention to detail, or any type of thought-demanding work.”

If You Do Employee Surveys, Listen to Respondents

By Daniel Butcher

Conducting regular employee surveys is a best practice that leads to better engagement, morale, retention, and productivity. But it isn’t enough to simply collect responses, according to Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University. It’s important for leaders to actually listen to respondents’ thoughts and feelings and take action to correct problems.

Roberson said that she was working with a large organization as a diversity consultant to develop a strategic plan and objectives. A key step was to collect feedback from its employees, some of whom were ringing alarm bells.

“In their employee survey, they had people who were talking about interpersonal incidents with their coworkers, and they felt bullied and harassed,” Roberson said. “Particularly members of certain groups didn’t feel a sense of belonging and would project that they only had a year left in the organization.

“And so I said, ‘That is really bad; we’ve got to address this … let’s talk about how to address this problem that people say they felt bullied and harassed,’” she said. “I didn’t say this as my own personal opinion; I was literally looking at the responses to their employee survey.

“And they said, ‘We don’t want to say that because it might make other people feel like they are harassed or bullied, and so their whole communication approach was to say, ‘We’ve got some good stuff going on, but we don’t want to talk about the bad stuff.”

While focusing on the positive is an understandable impulse, by not prioritizing the negatives, leaders and managers miss opportunities to make improvements that boost employee engagement, morale, retention, and productivity.

“It isn’t easy work to do, but if you put in the time and the investment, it also isn’t rocket science, so people have to be willing to do the work and get into the stickiness of it,” Roberson said.

“That’s the kind of conversations that I have, because if they’re not willing to do that hard work of thinking about ‘What do we do to fix our problems? What should our goals be? How do we want to be better? How could we be better? And how could we measure that?’ then I’m not the person to work with them, because that’s where I do my work at that strategic level,” she said.

“And that’s just a personal thing from my research and my background where I say, ‘If we don’t have those conversations about formulating strategy, developing dashboards, and creating processes to drive change, then we’re not going to get anywhere; we’re just putting a band-aid on stuff.’”

Help Employees Enter Training with a Motivated Mindset

By Daniel Butcher

For employee training sessions to be effective, it’s crucial for employees to be briefed on the objectives and the benefits of actively participating with a positive mindset.

Academy of Management Scholar Quinetta Roberson of Michigan State University said that before scheduling an employee training session, leaders should think through the pre-training process carefully.

“Usually, in the pre-training environment, employees get something that says, ‘You have to go through training,’ but it doesn’t tell them why they’re going through it, how to prepare for it, or how it’s going to help them and make them more effective employees,” Quinetta said.

“That really is important for people’s motivation to learn, to be able to say, ‘This training is going to be valuable to you; if you’re going to take four hours out of your busy day, this is how that’s going to benefit you—here are the benefits that you’re going to realize,’” she said.

“At least say, ‘There are the learning goals; here are some things you should get out of this training,’ because then they start to focus a bit more on what they should be getting out of this four-hour training period, or whatever the time period may be.”

It’s a best practice to let employees know that their lack of knowledge of a particular subject won’t be held against them, and that they should feel free to speak their minds and make mistakes. Make it clear that leaders don’t expect perfection but do want employees to participate actively and seek opportunities for learning.

“In the training event itself, we give certain suggestions for how to make the training more engaging, reflective, and useful to people; for example, a lot of training does not allow mistakes or errors,” Roberson said. “For one organization, all employees were required to go through online sexual harassment training , and in the post-training assessment if you push the wrong thing, it just says, ‘No, that’s wrong,’ and it just allowed people to get through the training as long as they got whatever percentage correct that they needed in order for the organization to be compliant.

“But instead, why not experiment with behaviors give participants an opportunity to experiment with different scenarios and ask, ‘How would you address this scenario?’ and let them have a safe space to actually wrestle with that?” she said. “Because then when they get out into the real world, they feel confident that whatever situations arrive, they’re able to deal with them.”

The Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility

By Daniel Butcher

Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of the George Washington University School of Business, one of the most influential management professors and researchers, said corporate social responsibility (CSR) is about three Ps—profit, the planet, and people—the “triple bottom line.” The following is an overview of how CSR has evolved, reflecting changing societal expectations and business practices:

1. Robber barons whitewash their image with philanthropy:

In the 1800s and early 1900s, ultra-wealthy industrialists such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller engaged in charitable activities. The idea of businesses having responsibilities beyond profit maximization was out of favor among the politicians and business leaders of the day, but began to spread among academics and social critics.

2. Businesspeople have social responsibilities:

In 1953, economist Howard R. Bowen wrote Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, recommending that companies should focus on business ethics, contribute positively to their community, and do good things for society, not just make money. Urging business leaders to consider stakeholders other than shareholders and look at outcomes beyond profits was out of step with the post-World War II era, but that concept gained influence in the following decades.

3. Strategic CSR and stakeholder theory:

In the wake of the publication ofR. Edward Freeman’s 1984 book,Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, thathighlights the interconnected relationships among a business and its customers, suppliers, employees, investors, communities, and other stakeholders, and the U.N.’s 1987 report,Our Common Future, CSR started to become integrated into more companies’ strategic-planning processes in the 1990s. As the turn of the millennium approached, more businesses recognized that socially responsible practices could enhance reputation and boost profitability.

4. Globalization and standards:

As globalization accelerated in the 2000s and 2010s, businesses faced increasing pressure to adopt CSR practices to improve their environmental effects, pay and treatment of workers, and ethical governance. Frameworks such as the U.N. Global Compact (introduced in 2000) and the International Organization for Standardization’s ISO 26000 standard (released in 2010) provided guidelines for sustainable and socially responsible policies. In addition, corporate transparency and reporting gained traction as more companies began publishing annual sustainability and CSR reports.

5. Integration of CSR and ESG:

CSR has increasingly become intertwined with sustainable business management, emphasizing the importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. More investors, consumers, and regulators are demanding greater accountability in charting progress toward achieving CSR objectives and quantifying the effects of organizations’ operations on climate change, social justice, and sustainable development.