How to Make Hybrid Models Work Well

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.”

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 Reduces Compensation Differentials

By Daniel Butcher

Pay transparency can lead to pay compression, in which employees’ compensation—regardless of whether they’re long-tenured or new, high-performing or just sliding by—tend to cluster around an average or median level for a particular role.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that people perceive their employer’s compensation structure to be unfair tend to leave the organization. In those cases, pay transparency can interfere with employee retention goals. But he’s found in his research that pay can be a moving target, where pressure to recruit can drive up new hires’ compensation, higher than longer-tenured employees serving in similar roles.

“It’s important to see what the impact of pay transparency is on individual behavior, but we also want to see what happens with turnover rates at the firm level,” Bamberger said. “The argument was based on several research papers in economics in particular with consistent findings that when pay becomes more transparent, it also becomes more compressed.

“Essentially, managers differentiate between stars and poor performers less and give everybody more or less the same or a similar raise and bonus,” he said.

While the economists didn’t really look at the mechanism as to why that is, Bamberger and his colleagues did examine that and came up with a theory to explain the trend.

“The argument is that managers are kind of lazy, and they prefer not to have to deal with an employee coming in and demanding that they deserve more than someone else,” Bamberger said. “So when pay is transparent, regardless of differences in individual contribution, they just give everyone the same level of pay increase or bonus.”

Pay Transparency Can Push Reward Inequities Under the Table

By Daniel Butcher

Performance-based pay—including merit-based salary increases and bonuses—can be complicated by pay transparency rules that make the details known to coworkers, according to Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University.

A reaction to that can lead to pay compression—when wages for low-skilled or low-performing workers and wages for high-skilled or high-performing workers move closer together—or an increase in requests for deals with special perks, also called idiosyncratic deals or i-deals. I-deals are non-standard work arrangements that individual employees negotiate to get remote work or flexibility, training opportunities, special assignments, and even performance benchmarks that would trigger bonuses. I-deals are often used to reward high-performing candidates and employees who have specialized skills in the hopes of retaining them long-term.

“You can imagine, if you’re a star performer and your bonus or merit-based raise is lower than it’s been before, you’re likely to think about leaving that organization and going to work somewhere else—and that’s exactly what some economists have found, that where we have pay compression, the star performers actually pick up and leave,” Bamberger said. “I recently published a paper that also shows the same thing, that pay compression very quickly leads to star performers’ departure.”

So what can organizations’ leaders do?

“What we find is that employees don’t necessarily push for more money; they make their requests for other types of rewards, primarily benefits as part of what we call idiosyncratic deals, things like the number of days per week that they can work from home or the number of weeks per year that they can work from Hawaii,” Bamberger said. “There’s a large body of literature on i-deals in management, and they include various types of benefits packages.

“What we find using data from about 120 organizations in China is that where pay is more transparent, the differentials in the pay of higher and lower performers are more compressed,” he said. “Perhaps because such a situation could drive higher performers to look for alternative employment, when pay was more transparent, employers rewarded the higher performers in other, less observable ways using these idiosyncratic deals. If fact, higher performers asked for these types of deals, and in 50% of cases where they ask for it, they got it.

“What’s actually happening is that transparency is shifting the pay differential from where it can be seen, annual raises and bonuses, to those types of rewards where it’s not transparent, that is, idiosyncratic deals.”

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.”

Why Retirees Change Their Alcohol Consumption

By Daniel Butcher

Whether people increase or decrease the amount of alcohol they drink after retirement depends on a range of factors, including what role and industry they retire from.

Academy of Management Scholar Peter Bamberger of Tel Aviv University said that he and colleagues studied the implications of general work-related transitions on health and well-being, with a particular focus on subjects’ behavior with regard to drinking alcohol, before and after retirement.

“We actually started with people as they move towards retirement, and we did a 10-year study,” Bamberger said. “The research was finding mixed effects of retirement on alcohol consumption; some studies found that retirement is a great way to address your drinking problems, because you’re often removing people from a high-risk environment where people around them drink a lot.

“But other studies were finding that people go into retirement and move into a retirement community and happy hour starts at noon,” he said.

Bamberger’s and colleagues’ question was, ‘Is retirement good or bad with regard to alcohol consumption or misuse?’ They were looking at various factors that determine when a person’s level of drinking goes in one direction and when it goes in the other direction.

“A simple finding is, if you’re coming out of a high-risk occupation, for example, iron workers, people who build skyscrapers—this is an occupation that has its roots with very heavy drinking communities, so if you joined that occupation, at least in the past, you were likely to adopt those patterns, or you wouldn’t stay in the occupation,” Bamberger said. “So retiring from that is obviously going to be beneficial, because you’re taking yourself out of a social context of high alcohol consumption.”

But there are other variables to consider, including relationships with friends, family, and spouses. A best practice for retirees is keeping busy with hobbies, volunteerism, or even some part-time work, any activity aimed at staying engaged and connected and ensuring a continuing sense of self-worth and contribution.

“We looked at some of the factors that are associated with retirement, like financial stress and marital strain, with one member of a couple working the other one not, and we can find implications there as well for drinking,” Bamberger said. “The routine is disrupted; there’s more free time for one partner in the relationship but not the other.

“There’s a vast array of moderating and conditioning factors that determine when retirement has one implication—more drinking—versus another—less drinking,” he said. “Retirees who plan how to structure their time post-separation from work tend to have better health outcomes.

“Overall, work-related transitions can be difficult for people, and our current research has aimed at exploring the mental-health implications of other such transitions, including for students and soldiers transitioning into career employment for the first time.”

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.”

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.

Effective Performance Management Helps with Retention

By Daniel Butcher

The first step for leaders to improve their organization’s performance management is to define it. The next step is to measure it. Further, leaders must ensure that performance-management processes and procedures, including employee reviews and evaluations, are aligned with organizational goals. If done well, performance management can save the organization money by retaining star performers.

That’s according to Academy of Management Scholar Herman Aguinis of at the George Washington University School of Business and author of Performance Management for Dummies, who said that a strong focus on increasing the effectiveness of the organizations’ performance management can not only help them to optimize their talent through targeted skills development and training, but also retain excellent workers.

“If you have a good performance-management system in place, then you talk to employees and make an effort to understand them, you know who your top players and star performers are, and you can anticipate that someone might leave and do something about it before they give notice,” Aguinis said.

Employee turnover is expensive for businesses, with costs ramping up for more senior and high-performing staff members. Costs from employee turnover include recruiting—including advertising, applications, interviews, and onboarding—and training. Administrative costs and lost productivity due to turnover are difficult to calculate exactly, but certainly significant. There are also hidden costs of turnover, for example, culture change, decreased morale and engagement, lost institutional knowledge, potential customer or member dissatisfaction, and even workplace safety problems.

A possible solution? Improve your performance management, align it with the organization’s strategic objectives, identify your top performers, and adjust your discretionary compensation accordingly, then you’ll reduce employee turnover, Aguinis said.