Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • A Cognitive Evaluation and Equity-Based Perspective of Pay For Performance On Job Performance A Meta-Analysis and Path Model Enhanced Reader

    Uploaded by

    muhammad haris novianto
    12 views27 pages

    Original Title

    A cognitive evaluation and equity-based perspective of pay for performance on job performance A meta-analysis and path model Enhanced Reader

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12 views27 pages

    A Cognitive Evaluation and Equity-Based Perspective of Pay For Performance On Job Performance A Meta-Analysis and Path Model Enhanced Reader

    Uploaded by

    muhammad haris novianto

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 27
    # frontiers | Frontiers in Psychology n chess tocupdtn (OPEN ACCESS Asian inte of Management. Pitppnes University of ass rane Zn cheng, use Univers of Economies, China Sinan Zhe houfesmal reduc Tarte wae submited to Organizatoal Psychology. section of he jour Froniasin Psychology 008 September 2022 ‘cers0 28 December 2022 sve 20 January 2023 {hang X and Yu 120251 cogntiva tlution and equty-baced passpecive ofpay fr performance on Job periormance:A rete-ants and path model Front Psycho 18:1039575. ot 103365 psye. 20221039575 ane Yu. This an open acess arcle orm provided he onal Buttons) and te copynant owners) fre craded and hat the orga Sccordance with accepted adem procter No ure. dsbuson or rt comply with wese ars De Systema Review ko 20 January 2023, 01 10.888rfpsyg 20221089575 A cognitive evaluation and equity-based perspective of pay for performance on job performance: A meta-analysis and path model Yuyao Chen’, Zhengtang Zhang’, Jinfan Zhou*, Chuwei Liu’, Xia Zhang? and Ting Yu Business School, Nanjing Unters, Nang, Cina, "Schoo of Management, Wuhan Univesity of Technology, Wanan, Chita Pay for performance, as one of the most important means of motivating ‘employees, has attracted the attention of many scholars and managers. However, controversy has continued regarding whether it promotes or undermines job performance. Drawing on a meta-analysis of 108 independent samples (N = 71,438) from 100 articles, we found that pay for performance was positively related to job performance. That pay for performance had a more substantial postive effect on task performance than contextual performance in workplace settings. From the cognitive evaluation perspective, we found that pay for performance enhanced employees’ task performance and contextual performance by enhancing intrinsic motivation and weakened task performance and contextual performance by increasing employee pressure From the equity perspective, our results indicated that the relationship between pay for performance and task performance was partially mediated by employee Perceptions of distributive justice and procedural justice, with distributive justice having a more substantial mediating effect than procedural justice However, the relationship between pay for performance and contextual performance was only partially mediated by procedural justice. Further tests of moderating effects indicated that the varying impacts of pay for Performance are contingent on measures of pay for performance and rational culture, The findings contributed to understanding the complex mechanisms and boundary conditions of pay-for-performance’s effects on job performance, which provided insights for organizations to maximize its positive effects pay for performance, job performance, cognitive evaluation, equity, meta-analysis Introduction ‘An important concern for employers is how to encourage employees to show high job performance in organizational practice. Pay for performance (PPP) refers to any pay program for employees in which some or all of their pay depends on their individual or organizational performance (eg, merit pay, individual and/or team bonus pay, proftssharing and stock plans) (Gerhart and Fang, 2015; Nyberg et al, 2016, Kong, al, 202% Park and Conroy, 2022). Moreover, itis seen as tone of the essential means for employers to motivate their cmployces and has received much attention from researchers and employers (Gerhart etal, 2008; Gerhart and Fang, 2014). However, for nearly half century scholars have been conflicted about whether and how PFP enhances or undermines employee job performance. Studies based on the economic and inital psychological perspectives all emphasized the incentive effects of PEP on job performance. The economic perspective suggests that individuals react rationally and selfinterestedly in the face of external incentives (Milgrom and Roberts, 1992). Since PEP enables extra effort to result in incremental payofs, employees improve their performance to maximize their pay, as suggested by the incentive intensity principle (Jensen and Meckling, 1976). ‘The early psychological perspective, such as expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), states that PEP has an incentive effect on individual performance, significantly when individvals recognize the value of pay, are convinced that high performance will result in high pay, and believe that they can change their performance by putting in the effort. Several empirical studies support the postive effects of PEP on job performance (eg. Chang and Hahn, 2006, Nyberg et al, 2016; Maltrich et al, 2017; Kong et al, 2022), In contrast, later cognitive psychological perspectives, represented by Deci and Ryan (1985), challenged the incentive effects of PEP. For example, cognitive evaluation theory and self. determination theory point out that PFP undermines employees! intrinsic motivation and thus reduces their work efforts, Although this idea triggered a_major crisis regarding the incentive effects of PFP, it also led scholars to shift from simply considering “PEP-performanee” to focusing on the psychological processes that link PEP to performance Prior meta-analyses have examined the relationship between PEP and performance (eg, Jenkins et al, 1998 Weibel etal, 2010; Garbers and Konradt, 2014; Kim et al, 2022), but all were conducted bated on the findings of experimental studies. Experimental studies ate overly simplistic in both the operationalization of PEP and the assesment of performance. For example, PFP was manipulated using ither reward or no reward (Allschoid and Cellar, 1996; Hobson et al, 2021), and performance was measured in terms of the quantity or quality of completion of specified tasks (Whitehill and McDonald, 1993: Cadsby etl, 2007). Such simplified experimental manipulations ‘may reflect only part of the relationship between PEP and performance. First, in an actual workplace, the opposite of PEP may not be “zero? but rather “fixed pay? or PEP may bbe more finely represented as diferent intensities of PEP. Second, in actual workplace requirements, job performance 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, Involves not only aspects of completing in-role tasks, but also some extra-role aspects of work, such as volunteering overtime, and organizational citizenship behaviors, which are referred to as contextual performance (Borman and Motowidl, 1993: Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994 Rich et al, 2010) Also, PEP in the workplace means not only getting more if you do more but also losing more if you get less. In other words, PEP also means risk and uncertainty (Tosi Jr and Gomer Mejia, 1989). These issues cannot be fully considered in a meta-analysis basod on experimental studies. Therefore, the first question we want to answer through our meta-analysis is oes PEP promote or weaken employee job performance in real work settings, and to what extent does it have an effact? Does it have a differential effect on task performance and contextual performance? [Although multiple studies have explored the relationship between PEP and performance, the underlying mechanisms through which PEP affects performance remain incomplete As a representative of psychological perspectives, cognitive evaluation theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985) has been devoted to unlocking the psychological mechanisms between PEP and job performance. The growth of PEP literature has also witnessed the rise of cognitive evaluation theory from ‘an emerging lens to pethaps the dominant lens explaining the PEP effects, According to cognitive evaluation theory, PEP has both informational and controlling aspects, so that PEP can exert opposite effects on job performance through informational and conteoling mechanisms. Although past rmeta-analytic studies (eg, Jenkins et al, 1998; Kim et al 2022) have mentioned the cvtieal connecting role of cognitive related concepts such as intrinsic motivation in the relationship between PEP and performance, these discussions are relatively ‘minor in their discourse. More importantly, these meta-analytic articles do not answer the core issues of PEP research using a cognitive evaluation approach. For example, to what extent do informational and controlling mechanisms mediate the effects of PEP on job performance, espectively? Which mechanism explains the PFP-performance relationship more strongly? These are the second question that our meta-analysis seeks toaddress. 'As PEP rescarch has evolved, scholars have gradually moved beyond the assumption that people are rational and selEinterested to realize the impact of PEP on employces! irrational behaviors (Merriman and Deckop, 20075 Glaser ct al, 201% He et al, 2021). Employees! perceived fairness for unfairness affects their in-role performance and their trust or commitment to their organizations, which is directly related to whether they will engage in extra-role behaviors that are beneficial to the organization, such as organizational citizenship behaviors (Colquitt et al, 2013). Equity theory (Adams, 1963) may be a starting point to explore the mechanisms by which PEP works on different coping strategies of employees (Garbers and Konnadt, 2014}, None of the mmeta-analytic studies included the examinations of PFP fon justice, Only one meta-analytic review (Carers and Konrad, 2014) cited seminal conceptual articles on equity theory (eg. Honmans, 1961; Adams, 1963). Therefore, the third question we hope to answer through our meta-analytic study is: Docs PFP predict perceived distributive justice and procedural justice? To what extent do distributive justice and procedural justice mediate the relationship between PEP and job performance (eg, task performance and contextual performance)? ‘The fourth issue of concern in our meta-analysis is whether there are validated boundary conditions that ean explain the inconsistent conclusions of the current studies, Our literature review found that existing studies have operationalized PEP in diferent ways, which can be broadly classified into four categories: perception, proportion, amount, and adoption, “Perception” operationalizes PFP as a subjective perception ofthe pay-performance link. “Proportion” measures PEP as a percentage of performance-related pay inthe total compensation. "Amount" refers to PEP as the amount of the performance-based component of pay. “Adoption” refers to the presence or absence of PFP, which has been included in most previous meta-analyses (eg, Jenkins etal, 1998; Weibel et al, 2010; Garbers and Konradt, 2014) Different measures tend to relect only one aspect of PFP, and we believe it is necessary to examine which PEP operationalization produces a more profitable predictive effect on performance and other outcome variables. Furthermore, with the increasing global adoption of PFP, it would be beneficial for realistic enterprise management to examine whether there are differences in the effects of PED across 1 ional cultures. ‘Therefore, itis also necessary to consider the moderating effect of national culture on the relationship between PEP and employee outcomes ‘This research aims to provide a more accurate view of how PEP affects job performance in the workplace and explore the mechanisms through which PEP conteibutes to jab performance, To do so, we only included studies conducted in real work settings in meta-analysis and developed the mmeta-anslytic structural equation models based on cognitive valuation theory and equity theory, respectively. In addition, we examine the moderating effects of PFP operationalization and national culture on the relationship between PEP and employee outcomes to provide new insights for a more comprehensive and accurate understanding ofthe effects of PEP onemployees. This. rex rch makes significant contributions to. the literature on PEP. First, our meta-analysis focus on studies conducted in actual work settings has the potential to challenge and extend current thinking about the incentive flest of PEP. Existing meta-analytic reviews (eg. Jenkins etal, 1998 Weibel ct al, 2010; Garbers and Konradt, 2014; Kim et al, 2022) primarily based on highly controlled experiments, with the 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, assumption that PEP works in such controled conditions as it docs in the workplace. However, in real work settings there i 8 greater amount of pay, longer hours involved, and a greater need for employees to be paid for their work (Rynes etal 2005). These indicat thata meta-analysis based on experimental studies may not conclude the actual effect of PFP on employees! performance in the real workplace (Weibel et al, 2010). In response to Rynes tal. (2005) call to “move tothe fel” our sicta-analysis summarizes the effect of PFP on job performance by including only those studies that were conducted in rel work settings (as opposed to laboratories). In doing so, we hope to ‘open new avenue fora more accurate summary af the incentive effect of PEP on job performance in the workplace. Second, we explore the meditating mechanism to explain how and why DEP effects transfer to employee job performance. We focus on cognitive evaluation mechanisms and justice ‘mechanisms, as cognitive evaluation theory and equity theory fe among the few theories that focus on the underlying psychological mechanisms of PFP effects and play a pivotal role in PEP research (Gethart and Fang, 2015). From the cognitive evaluation perspective, we predict that PEP will fect employees intrinsic motivation and pressure, which can subsequently influence employees’ task performance and contextual performance. From the equity perspective, we predict that PEP will affect employces! perceptions of distributive justice and procedural justice, which can conteibute toto job performance types, By examining the mediating mechanisms in four research, we respond to call for farther understanding of “the psychological mechanisms that explain employse reactions {o [PPP] plans” and help “identify why [PEP] plans do not always workas intended” (Rynes etal, 2005, p. 573) Finally, most PEP studies confirm the positive impact of PEP on employee outcomes. However, there remains a notable amount of variability among the empirical findings, suggesting the existence of potential moderating variables that sway observed estimates, Therefore, the third contribution of | four research is to explore the moderating effects of national culture and PEP measurement on the claionship between PEP snd employee outcomes Hypotheses Pay for performance and job performance Linking employees’ performance and their pay isthe core of PEP, This incentive motivates employees to work harder to maximize their pay (Milgrom and Roberts, 1992). Agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976) states that the principal could incentvize agents by conteolling their financial incentives. The principal (in the real work setings, is the employer) aligns the agents! (employees, correspondingly) interest with its own by linking agents’ pay with their performance, whieh rmotivates agents to maximize their performance to get what they want (money). Thus, rather than being. an incentive theory, agency theory is more of control theory to help the principle to monitor agents’ behaviors In expectancy theory, an individual’ effort is the product of the expectation (the probability that an individual’ effort can result in desired performance), instrumentality (the perceived probability that desired performance will ead to expected compensation), and valence (the value that the individual placed on the rewaed as compared to other outcomes, such a stress, less leisure time) (Vroom, 1964), Therefore, PEP strongly affects individual performance if the link between fort, performance, and rewards is obvious. In equity theory (Adams, 1963), employees determine whether they are being treated fairly by comparing their pay with others and with themselves, respectively. Equity does not exactly mean equality, while equity is a balanced perception of input and outcome. When employees perceive equity, they are motivated to invest more effort, resulting in high job performance. As a fairess-oriented compensation system, PEP rellests the value of “more work, more pay” and increases employees’ perception of justice, thus helping to improve employee job performance. In cognitive evaluation, theory, the effect of PFP scems to be variable. PEP affects employee performance in two ways: control and information| (Deei and Ryan, 1985). When PEP is interpreted as an informative system, it can motivate employees to maximize their performance (Fisher, 1978). Conversely, when PEP is perceived 4s controlling system, employces perceive themselves under external threat and pressure, which drives burnout and reduces work effort (Veh et al, 2009; Kuvaas etal, 2016). Although the findings on the relationship between PEP and job performance are inconsistent, most studies support the incentive effect of PFP on job performance. For instance, In Chien etal. (2010) study, when R&D professionals were rewarded according to thei job performance, they tended to focus on the job performance, which verified the motivational effect of PEP. Based on the 3-year longitudinal data from the health care industry, Maltarich etal (2017) also found that PF positively affects individual performance. Thus, we predicate a strongly postive relationship between PEP and job performance. Previous meta-analyses on PEP and job performance have classified performance as quantitalive performance and qualitative performance (Garbers and Konradt, 2014; Kim etal, 2022), or ditecly and integrally as job performance (Jeskins et al, 1998; Weibel et aly 2010). However, performance is 4 multidimensional concept, and each dimension expresses diferent aspects of performance, 50 it is necessary to distinguish the specific effects of PFP on different dimensions of performance, Researchers acknowledge tha task performance and contextual performance are two distinet aspects of job performance, and each has unique contributions to overall job performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, “Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter et al, 20005 Rich cal, 2010). Task performance refers to those activities that ace more closely related to the content of the job and are formally required by the organization to be completed. On the contrary, contextual performance refers to those voluntary sctvities that are beneficial to the organization but are not required by it In agency theory (Jensen and Meckling, 1976), PEP wil likely motivate employees to focus more on theie role behaviors, such a task performance (Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Milgeom and Roberts, 1992). A possible by-product is that employees may reduce un-rewarded behaviors, such as contextual performance (Deskop et al, 1989). Several studies show the different effects of PEP on both dimensions of job performance (Deckop et aly 1999 Du and Choi, 2008; Chien etal, 2010; Aub and Menguc, 2013; He etal, 2021). Ia ine with previous studies, we expect PEP has unique effects on task performance and contextual performance Hypothesis 1a: PFP i positively related to jb performance. Hypothesis 1b: PEP has a stronger association with in-role performance (egy task performance) than with extra-role performance (eg. contextual performance) The emerging importance of cognitive evaluation theorizing in the PFP literature Although the PED Titerature has focused a great deal of theoretical attention on whether and why PEP produces positive effects on employce outcomes such as job performance, examination of hove PEP works, especially how it works on job performance, is an ongoing theme. Gerhart and Milkovieh (1992) noted that there needs to be more psychological research on the relationship between PFP and outcomes, because only a better understanding of the psychological rechanisms by which PEP drives employees ean explain “why [PFP] plans do not always work as intended” (Rynes etal 2005, p. 573). Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed the cognitive evaluation theory based on the liberal and individualistic ideas of the Romantic philosophical view and pointed out that intrinsic motivation is the original driving power that drives people to perform behavioral activites. Individuals will cognitively evaluate the external environment (eg, PEP) to determine whether it can support their claim to freedom. An informative environment or thing enhances an individual’ intrinsic motivation, whereas a controlling reward makes the individual feel pressured and tends to. undermine intsinsic ‘motivation (Ryan, 1982; Ryan etl, 1983). Cognitive evaluation theory has led scholars, in « real sense, to focus on the psychological processes between pay and outcomes. As one of the few theories that focus on the underlying psychological mechanisms of PFP, cognitive evaluation theory plays an essential role in PF research (Gethart and Fang, 2015). Rynes etal (2005) labeled cognitive evaluation theory a8 one of the most influential psychological theories explaining the effectiveness of PEP in the workplace. ‘Therefore, we may belive that integrating cognitive evaluation theory and PEP is very useful in explaining why PFP may enhance or reduce employees’ task performance and contextual performance. A cognitive evaluation perspective: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation and pressure Just lke two sides ofa coin, PEP can be both a stressor and a motivator for employees. Cognitive evaluation theory (Deci and Ryan, 1980, 1985) suggests that PFP has both informational and controlling aspects. For the controlling aspect, the PFP tends to be experienced as controlling ifthe PEP signifies that employees must meet their own performance goals, 0 they can earn the pay raise, in other words, forcing employses to do something (Ryan et al, 1983). When employees perceive PEP as conteolling, they will feel pressure to mect performance goals and experience stress reactions such as anxiety, insomnia, and even depression, A survey of neatly 300,000 employees in Danish companies showed that employees were 5.7% more likely to use anxiolyties of antidepressants in companies with PEP (Dahl and Pierce, 2020). Some studies also supported the Positive relationship between PEP and pressure (Fitzpatrick, 20085 Habel et al, 2021). AS a result, employees will ry to reduce pressure in a varity of ways, such as decreasing work efforts, declining performance (Yitzhak et al, 2013), engaging in counterproductive behaviors (Carpenter and Berry, 2017), of leaving the company (Yitehak et al, 2013; Dahl and Pierce, 2020). Therefore, we predicted that PFP would increase employees’ presure, and pressure would mediate the relationship between PEP and job performance. For the informational aspect, the PEP tends to be experienced as information ifthe PEP signifi to employees thst they are capable of doing their jobs and that receiving pay raises means they are performing well in other words, increasing employees! perceptions of competence. When employees perceive PFP as information, their interest in the work itt increases, which is called “intrinsic motivation” in motivation research Several studies confirmed that PFP enhances inteinsic ‘motivation (Cabanas et al, 2020). Hackman and Oldham (1978) suggested that intrinsic motivation significantly influences employees’ behaviors and attitudes. Employees with high intrinsic motivation tend to care more about their work and actively seok better ways to address challenges in their work. Also, previous studics confirmed that intrinsic motivation mediates the relationship between PEP and its outcomes. For 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, Instance, creativity researchers found that intrinsic motivation ‘mediated the relationship between PEP and creativity (Zhang els 2015a, 2021), Thus, we suspect that PFP would positively relate to employee intrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation will mediate PFP and job performance, “Hypotheses 2a- 2b: PEP is positively related to (a) intrinse ‘motivation and (b) pressure. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between PEP and job performance (eg, task performance, and contextual performance) is mediated by intrinsic motivation ‘and presure Another explanation: The non-negligible importance of justice Although cognitive appraisal theory provides a nuanced framework for explaining the PEP effect in terms of psychological mechanisms, this explanation is relatively ‘emotional because itis the employees’ cognitive appraisal of| PEP about their own needs for competence and autonomy. In contrast, equity theory (\dams, 1963) offers an alternative perspective to explain the PEP effect with a relatively rational psychologicl-cognitive paradigm. According to equity theory, people in social exchange relationships (in compensation nie exchange only) believe that pay should be given based on how much each member contributes (Adams, 1963, 1965; Walser etal, 1973), Employees will compare their input-output ratio with the reference and consider it fai only if they are equal (Covherd and Levine, 1992). Otherwise, they Will alter their actual input, such as reducing. work efforts, decreasing organizational citizenship behavior, or leaving the organizations (eg, Colquitt etal, 2002, 2013; Chien et al, 2010), By linking employees’ income with their job performance, EP is completely consistent with the principle of “everyone should be paid faisly” reflected in the equity theory (Da, 2008). Therefore, performance pay is considered afait-oriented compensation system (Du and Choi, 2009). More scholars have paid attention tothe important explanatory tole of equity theory forthe PEP effect in recent years. For example, Chang and sho (2006) investigated the impact of PFP on employees’ perceptions of distributive justice in a Korean sample. Uriesi (2017) focused ‘on both distributive justice and procedural justice in explaining the PEP eects, Although equity theory has a place in the PEP literature, itis not at the core. In other words, the PEP and equity literature integration have been slower than expected. Therefore, tis necessary to integrate the two withina framework through @ quantitative review to provide an alternative perspective for explaining the psychological mechanisms ofthe PEP effect. An equity perspective: The mediating role of justice Researchers recognize that distributive justice and procedural justice are two distinctive aspects of organizational justice. In the PEP situation, distributive justice is defined as the perceived fairness of pay outcomes, especially focusing on the compensation employees received, Procedural justice is defined as the perceived fairness of the payment process, especialy focusing on the transparency of compensation allocation and the opportunities to voice (Colquitt etal, 2013; Zhang etal, 20136. Previous research indicated that compensation practice is one of the most important factors affecting employees! justice perception. In actuality, higher-paid employees more likely to believe they are being treated fairly, and the study of Newman and Milkovich (1990) supports this idea. PEP, as a compensation practice, enables high performers to be paid more, thus enhancing employees’ perception of justice, In addition, because PEP reflects the values of “more work, more pay” it increases employees’ sense of control over their pay (Self -determination), which is consistent with the logie of contral in equity (Leventhal, 1980). According to equity theory (Adams, 1963), the sense of unfairness comes fom imbalance, including one’ input-output imbalance and self-other imbalance. PEP enables employees to receive highly correlated pay with their contribution (eg. in-role effor), reducing the sense of unfairness caused by imbalanced comparison results, Researchers have recognized that distributing pay based on employee performance will promote employees’ perceptions of distributive justice and procedural justice (Campbell etal, 199% St-Onge, 20005 Du and Choi, 2009; Chien etal, 2010; Zhang etal, 2015b). In ine with previous studies, we stated that PFP positively affects these ‘Consistent with the logic that PEP affects justice, PEP should have a positive relationship with pay satisfaction. When «employees perceive performance as helpfilin achieving valuable ‘outcomes, such as a pay raise, their pay satisfaction inereases (Heneman etal, 198 Schaubrocck et al, 2008; Shi et al, 2016). Aalditionally, when employees input-output ratio is equal that ofa referent, they will be satisfied with their pay. PEP makes it easier to reach an equal rato, thus enhancing pay satisfaction, Groen and Heywood (2008) showed that the PEP increased overall employee satisfaction, pay satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job hours satisfaction. Evidence fora cross-cultuce sample in the US and Hong Kong also supports this effect. Thus, we hypothesize that: Hypotheses tafe: PEP is positively related to (a) distributive justice, (b) procedural justice, and (0) pay satisfaction 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, ilding on previous employee justice perception studies, wwe explored the mediating mechanism by which PFP affects job performance. As discussed ahove, PEP enhances employees! perceptions of justice. Also, several studies showed that a lack of justice would lead to unfavorable outcomes, such as poor task performance les organizational citizenship behaviors, and some negative attitudes in the workplace (Chien et al, 2010; Colquitt al, 2013; Hitapakka etal, 2013), Especially, there is a significant diference in the effects between the two types of justice: employees’ perceptions of procedural justice had a more significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment than perceptions of Aistributive justice, while employees’ task performance and job satisfaction are more directly influenced by distributive justice (Viswesvaran and Ones, 20023 Colquitt etal, 2013). Based on these findings, we suspected that increasing the intensity of PEP would improve employees’ perceptions of distributive justice and procedural justice, which would then exhibit unique effects fon task performance and contextual performance, Additionally, Williams tal. (2006) meta-analysis found a strong relationship between pay satisfaction and justice perceptions, so we expect justice to mediate the PFP-performance relationship after controlling for pay satisfaction, Hypothesis 5: The relationship between PEP and job performance (eg, task performance, and contextual performance) is mediated by distributive justice and procedural justice PFP operationalization as a moderator of the PFP-outcomes relationships Inconsistent findings between each PEP-outcomes relationship may result from hove PEP is measured, Extent esearch on the operationalization of PEP can be categorized into two camps: subjective and objective measurements, For subjective measurement, PEP was operationalized as a “perception” referring tothe association between performance and pay perceived by the employees. A wildly used scale was Deckop et al. (1999) 3item scale, which asked employees to evaluate the degree of performance-pay link, subjectively. The sample item is “Increased productivity means higher pay for employees.” Por the objective measurement, PEP was ‘operationalized as 4 “proportion” referring to the proportion of performance-hased pay in one’ total pay. This proportion can be reported by employees or calculated from organizational archival data, Furthermore, PEP can also be measured by the {otal amount of performance-based pay or the adaption of a DEP system. Du and Choi (2009) pointed out that the objective easement of PFP reduced the level ofambiguity, and iscloser to the actual PFP than the subjective measurement. However, objective measurements of PEP do not necessarily capture the more realistic impact of PFP, Calby et al. (2007) suggested that perceived PEP by employees may beter reflect the elects of PEP con employees attitudes and behaviors than actual PEP. Scholars have Tong recognized that actual PEP (‘PEP proportion. in this study) and perceived PFP ("PEP perception” in this study) have different effects on employee outcomes, although these are two highly correlated concepts (St-Onge, 2000). We predicted that the PFP operationalized as perception is more strongly related to outcomes variables than is PEP measured by other objective measurements (e, proportion, amount, and adaptation). First, the objective measurement of PEP assumes that employees ean fully and equally fel the PEP implemented by the organization. In fact, organizations may vary in the ability to convey the PEP they implemented, s0 the PFP perceived by employees is not the same as the PEP implemented by the organization (Deckop et aly 1999). Second, employees with diferent risk preferences and reward sensitivities wll have different PEP perceptions of the same PEP, making PFP produce diferent effects (Falmer and Shaw, 2018) People believe more in what they fel, and thus perceived PFP will have a greater impact on the outcome variable than actual PEP. Third, PFP creates a competitive atmosphere in which people compare themselves to each other. Perhaps this feling of comparison has a stronger impact on employees than the actual PEP. Thus, we hypothesize that: Hypotheses 60-6g. PEP operationalized as a perception is _more strongly related to (a) task performance, (b) contextual performance, (0) distributive justice, (d) procedural justice, () pay satisfaction, (f) intrinsic motivation, and (g) pressure ‘thax is PEP operationalized as a proportion, amount, or adoption. National culture as a moderator of the PFP-outcomes relationships Culture shapes the way people think and behave. Influenced by countries or regions, dtferent national cultures have been formed during the development of human civilization. National cultures distinguish people of the same national culture from others (Hofstede ct al, 2010). As a pivotal national culture characteristic, Individualism-collectvism may moderate the felationships between PEP and employee outcomes. People care more about the interest of the group they belong to in collctivstic countries than in individualistic countries in which people consider their interests (Hofstede et al, 2010) For collective interest and harmony, collectvist countries, such as China, Japan, and Korea, emphasize equalization or reduction of differences in pay distribution (Li and Fu, 2012; He and Fang, 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, 2016), However, a growing number of studies with samples of | ‘employees in cllectivistic countries have found that employees in callectvist countries tend to be positively motivated by PFP, despite this pay system conflicts with their national culture (Chang, 2002; Chang and Hahn, 2006; Du and Choi, 200%; Zhang ct al, 2021). These conclusions suggest that equal pay distribution or fewer pay differentials do not adequately ‘motivate employees. In such a situation of input-output inequality, once PFP is added to compensation management its Incentive effects for employees in collectivist countries will be significantly higher than those in individualist countries (Chang, 20025 He and Fang, 2016). Thus, PEP plays stronger positive role in colletivist countries than individualist countries, Moreover, national culture may provide a reasonable explanation far the inconsistent findings on the relationship between PEP and extra-role behavior (eg. helping behaviors, ‘organizational citizenship behavior, ete). PEP means that pay is determined by performance, so employees devote more effort to in-role issues and reduce the effort to extra-ole issues to ‘maximize their pay. However, compared with employees in individualistic countries who place individual interests above the organization, employees in collecivstc countries are more likely to sacrifice their interests to benefit the organization. As ‘result, employees in collectivstc countries may tend to do more extr-behaviors that are not required but beneficial to the organization, ie, contextual performance. Combined, we hypothesize that, Hypotheses 7a-7g: The postive associations between PEP and (a) task performance, (b) contextual performance, (6) distributive justice, (A) procedural justice, (e) pay satisfaction, (f) intrinsic motivation, and () pressure are stronger in samples from collectivitc countries than they are in samples fom individualistic countries, Methods Literature search ‘To identify studies that could be used in our meat-analysis, we fist searched for articles and dissertations published before November 2021 in ISI Web of Science and ProQuest. The search terms we used are “pay for performance’ “performance pay “variable pay” “performance-related pay. "performance- contingent pay” “pay contingent on performance” “contingent pay? "performance-based pay” and “output-based pay.” We also searched by replacing the word “pay” with “compensation “wage? “incentive? above terms, Second, we conducted a CNKT (one of the largest, Chinese citation databases) search using the same search terms in Chinese. Third, we checked the references of previous reviews about PFP to find articles that were not included ducing ycome? “bonus” and “reward” in the the database searches. Finally, we searched for and included PEP-themed papers from recent Academy of Management conferences to obtain unpublished papers In addition, we also ‘made an effort to obtain unpublished articles by requesting working papers from colleagues inthe field of PEP research, Inclusion/exclusion criteria We used six ctiteria to evaluate whether a study was inchided or not in the meta-analysis. Fist, a study had to bbe an empirical analysis, and we only included empirical studies that provided at least one correlation between DEP and our other variables of interest. We excluded articles that contain only regression coefficients as other variables influence the regression coefficients in models, which may distort the correlation relationship between the variables Second, a study had to report sample size fr us to calculate a sample weighted effect size. Third, if «study reports two or more independent samples, we coded these independent samples separately. On the contrary, ifthe same sample was used in two or more articles, we only considered the article that offered more information, Forth, we focused only on studies that examined PEP at the individual levels, We excluded studies investigating the relationship between CEO PEP and individual behaviors. Fifth, we used only those studies conducted in workplace settings. We excluded those studies with a sample of students (eg, Rack ot al, 20115 Belogolovsky and Bamberger, 2014). Finally, if the articles are published repeatedly, only one of them shall be selected. We only included the published journal article ifthe dissertation is revised and published in a journal ‘These inclusion criteria resulted in a final set of 100 articles representing 108 independent samples (N= 71,438). The PRISMA flowchart of the study review and selection process is shown i Figure Coding procedure We first created a coding table including coders’ names, the basic article information (eg. authors name, published year, journal name), effect size information (eg, correlation coeficient, sample size, key variables, ciabilty of variables, and moderator data (eg. country, measurement of Key variables, ete). Next, alter developing the coding guidelines, the frst author and two research assistants independently coded random selection of 10 articles, and then discussed and setled thie disagreements. After two research assistants coded the rest ofthe article and discussed any ambiguities with the first author to achieve an agreement, the ist author checked all the coding data and resolved errors. We coded job performance using Borman and Motowidla (1993) definition, which classified job performance into two 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, categories: task performance and contextual. performance. When coding job performance, we pay particular attention to the diferent ways of expressing performance. For example, task performance includes task performance, in-role performance (behavior) sale performance, work performance, and individual performance, whereas contextual performance includes contextual performance, relational performance, extra-rle performance (behavior), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), helping behavior, and voice behavior. Justice was ‘operationalized as employees’ subjective perceptions of the faimess of their input-to-output ratio and was classified into Listeibutive justice and procedueal justice based on the typology proposed by Cropanzano et al. (2001). Intrinsic motivation is referred to as motivation that draws people into an activity fut of interest and enjoyment in the activity ite. Given its relevance to pay theories, we only coded the pay satisfaction version of job satisfiction, Measures of pressure included pressure, performance pressure, pressure to produce and stress. For the moderator, we use scores from Hofstede et al (2010) Cultural Values Survey to code national culture The survey rates countries or regions according to their individualistic tendencies, with higher score indicating stronger individualistic tendencies and sscaker collectivistc tendencies, and lower scores indicating stronger collectivistc tendencies and weaker individualistic tendencies. Consistent with Roskstubl ral (2012), we used the median split of individualism scores to categorize the studies into individualistic and collectvistic countees. ln thi study, when the sample source region scored below 40 in terms of individualistic tendencies, we labeled it as a collectvistic country, with representative countries or regions such as South Korea, China (including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan), Portugal, Turkey, ete. When the score of individualistic tendencies exceeded 40, we labeled it ts individualistic countries, with representative countries o regions Germany, Canada, USA, Israeli ete ‘To code the PEP operationalization, we fist examined cach PEP constructs measure items, looking for each measurements diferences and similarities. We then categorized the PEP measures into four categories: perception, proportion, amount, and adoption. We coded the measure as “perception” ifthe PEP construct was measured asthe association between performance and pay perceived by the employee (Deckop ct al, 1999; Ren etal, 2017; Yang et al, 2019). It was coded as “proportion” if it was measured as the proportion of performance-based pay in total pay, regardless ofthe report from the employees themselves ‘or the calculation based on the organizational archival records (Dw and Choi, 20095 Shi ts, 2016). Iwas coded as “amount” if measured as the actual data on the amount of performance: based pay (Kuvaas et al, 2020a,}). It was coded as “adoption” if it was measured as the adoption of a pay system in which pay changes with performance instead of fixed pay (Shantz etal, 2018; Park snd Yang, 2019). Measures that were unclear, varying, or had a mix of eo or more measurements mentioned above Records identified from Web of Science (k= 5,794) Coronas ProQuest (k= 272) Rocondssercencd (22368) Full articles assessed fr eligibility = 8.268) Articles included. ‘= 95) Studies inched in meta-analysis > 100), were caded as “uncleas” and were not included in the analysis of the moderating effet of PEP operationalization. Meta-analysis procedure We employed the meta-analytic approach suggested bby Hunter and Schmidt (2008), which is widely used in organizational management research, Specially, we adapted random 5k+10 denotes the number of independent samples), the larger the value, the more stable the analysis results are nd the less likely there is publication bias problem. When the Nj is 5k-+10, indicating thatthe overall findings ofthis study were stable and there was litle possibility of publication bi The meta-analytic results for the relationships between PEP and other variables canbe found in Table 1. As shown in'Table I, PEP had a postive effect on job performance (p = 0.28, 959% C1 = (0.18, 0.29)), and PEP had a stronger association with task performance (p = 026, 95% CI = [0.19, 0.32)) than with contextual performance (p = 0.7, 95% CI = (0.06, 028). “Therefore, Hypothesis 1a and Ib were both supported In addition to the meta-analytic correlations between PEP and job performance, Table | also presented the meta-analytic results of PEP with other individual outcomes. Results showed that PEP had positive effects on intrinsic motivation (p 0.14, 95% CI = [0.07, 021), pressure (p = 0.18, 95% CI {004, 0.32), distributive justice (p = 0.36, 95% Cl = (0.22, 050), procedural justice (p = 0.34, 95% CI = [0.22, 0.45), and pay satisfaction (p = 0.16, 95% CI = (008, 0.25). In sum, Hypotheses 2a-2b and Hypotheses 4a-4c were supported. Eisen Mediating effects of intrinsic motivation and pressure Hypothesis 3 predicted that the relationship between PEP and job performance (eg. task performance and contextual performance) would be mediated by inteinsie Chen eta 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, ‘TABLE Meta-analtic rests for PP, job performance another individual outcomes. eo Jeb pertormance | mgs 0m ale | 0s | asa | ask 14719 “iaperormnce 2 | sass om om | 06 om | oy om | om ow | mam | 9am Conetalpeormance | 28 | 7.80 02s | 0x7) a2 | 00s | ame | 019 ast | 769" | 2am Inti moan | se on ow ais | oor | amt | 006 ass uss | 7 Pree s [2m | om | on | ow | ais | oo | om | -om | a” | sim | 1m Distt jatce w | as | os | am | om | ax | om | aso | om a7 | suse | sms Procol sie | soo om | am | om | aa | om | aus | -om a7 | mszm | 4mm Paymticton Pc eC eC ee ee oe) number oso — ta amples = spe ai we an eer ol Dy = ee end evan ‘ied wn cece contin, cove for nity 82 cared etn seed cen Cy ne ls per bn cya {asda oper, opin of he Wey are crc cron heen Ny =n fate tino gant ete reel ert be ctl craton 9 = sale 2k performance 9) 07,026 Scone performance, 9) ore 202 kN 270 99 “nic motion 6) ore os0s 026030" kN 2o.s086 48,2100 fr) Spremire 9) on.018 003,003 000 01.00% kN s2a1 v.01 1.5055 9.2654 ran (90 frm e JenSrh -(h motivation and pressure. To test these hypotheses, we put the correlation matrix (Table2) into Mpls 80 by conducting 4 MASEM. As Viswesvaran and Ones (1995) suggested, Wwe used the harmonic mean as the sample size for the structural equation model (in this model, N = 6054), The model fit the data adequately well: x? (1, N 6054) = 0.17, CF = 1.00; TL = 1.00, RMSEA = 000, SRMR = 0.002, Tigute2 ilstrated that PEP was positively related to pressure (B = 0.18, p < 001) and intinsic motivation (B 0.14,p < 0.1), The pressure wasa significant negative predictor of task performance (8 = ~0.10, p < 0.01), and iminsc rotvation wasasgafcant positive prdicator oft (B= 0.3, p ~< 001). For contextual performance, pressure (8 = ~0.0, p = 0.61 and intrinsic motivation (B = 0.28, p< 0.01) had opposite effects on contextual performance ‘As shown in Table, PEP had a significant indirect relationship with task performance, mediated theough both abo it = map oe = magi whl en ceed an p= mapa igh a ed red re erm ne a (205)p om Zt (2019) ae wegen nec cream ot oid), llmets ances ha pear tou sper ae rg anaes pressure (indirect effect = -0.02, 95% Cl = [-0.02, -0.01)) and intrinsic motivation (indirect effect = 0.05,95% CI = [0.04 (0.06). Similarly, the relationship between PEP and contextual performance was mediated by both pressure (indirect effect, = -001, 95% CI = [-0.01, ~0.0)) and intrinsic motivation (indirect effect = 0,04, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.05). These results offer support for Hypothesis 3. Mediating effects of distributive justice and procedural justice In Hypothesis 5, we proposed that justice (eg distributive justice, procedural justice) will mediate the influence of PEP fn task performance and contextual performance. To test this prediction, we followed the testing procedure as with Hypothesis 3. We input the correlation matrix (Table 4) into Mplus 8.0 by conducting MASEM, and the model resulted in an acceptable fit Chen eta 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, oa” Task performance | mer (Contexial prfomance 029 t ous” <005, "p< 001 ‘TABLES Tests of mediation for cognitive evaluation. prosented wore unstandarizd esate: Harmonic N= 6.054, 4p h SE Indirect effect INDI: PrP» PR» TP or 000 [-002,-001) npa.ner pR-+ cP oo 0.00 [001,000] Inbar ies TP owe 00 (00s, 0061 Inpeprr> mw cP oor 00 (003,005) Indirect effect difference INDLIND.P4-—> PR» TP. PRP-> IM TP 008" oo (007,005) INDRA. PFD» PRs CP-PFP-s IM cP as 000 006,004) Direct effect Peps Te ose vor (021,026) mrs ce owe vot jonos6t Total effect PrP oe oat (024,023) verse om vot (o3s,020) i py fr pearance PR, prs IM arc tation TH ik perm conte perormaes Ei sted ores winged cones fe 2008 rege hgh ROG tothe data (X? (1, N= 4,401) = 21.13, CF RMSEA = 0.068, SRMR = 0.010). Figure presents the results of the path analysis of the influence of PEP on job performance (via justice). We controlled for pay satisfaction (not shown in Figure 3) Decause previous research has found pay satisfaction to influence employees’ justice perceptions and task performance (Colquitt et al, 2013). As shown in Figure3, PEP had significant positive effects on distributive justice (B = 0.24, P< 001) and procedural justice (B = 028, p < 001) Distributive justice had significant relationship with tase = 0998; TL = 0.967, performance (B = 047, p < 001), but not contextual performance (B = 003, ns). Procedural justice had significant lunigue effects on job performance: procedural justice had a larger and positive relationship with contextual performance (B = 026, p < 001), as compared to task performance (=007, p dupe =e wos diez wo | vo | wo | wo | oe | wo | we | emo | om T wondepy oro=dert = 1) omy ae | ee | tre | eo . weer wosdasi=% 8 wo) oe) ety | swe) ere ond wortori-= "| ore | ore | ore | aro | wo | ov | ore | ave | wo | ow 5 ood ‘vonenyou! 2isuunu wa>des=rz | wi | wo | we | wo | wo | oo | me | oe | co | run | andor orosdori=r | ise | re | wo | ero | ov | ore) sve | ore | we | eee) ondany worFuee= ete | wo) CeCe): oniodang uonDeysnes fed struc | wo) yeu | aro) oro eondny sonsnfeinpesoig wortore-=z | arse | wo) we | wo) we | ste | ome | ere | ore) wet) omodaut sapsnf annnaunsig ase | wo | wt | wo wo | mo | oe usr al eondeany Wwo>éyer-=2 awe) eter we) wee woe oniodaag ‘souewojied yerixsiuo> corn | wo | yey) cre |e) ond wa>dwsez | wit | ie | sco ory | ico | or | «oe | we | ico | om | @ soot seueuuojed yseL, Eoy ‘sewoosne pue yaa uoomsog sdusuoney uo uonezneuonesade did Jo Beye SunREMpOH 9 3T8VL, 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, Chen eta 2 pape panog inp any 49 pl. sags mb SN PEN AA SEH 52 "mn pss pos es pon a 2s en uM pen wo | eve soo wo=dscomz wo | wo | wo | wo | we ‘vonenous sun wu>dwr-=z wave are) woe) etDwee wrt 5 ‘em ‘UoRDeIsReS Keg a ws 00> Pwr =z sy) woo sro oro ero tt 5 ‘Sa sopsnfyeanpesoid wo | oo) sto) ) co a asa 90> wey =z we ie |e C “usp sopsnf annnausig 00> dese =z sro « ‘em ‘souewwojad yerix=1U05 wu | 90 | oo | wo) me) ate | ree | ae | ae) wet ase windeei-=2 | waa | oe | we | wo | om | ore | so | «ro | wo | ww | wm ‘SPL souewojod 9se, = -8.00, p< 0.01), procedural justice (individualism: 0.05, 0.25); collectivism: p = 0.13, 15% CI = [0.28, 057], Z = ~308, p < 001), and pay satisfaction (individualism: p = 0.05, 95% CI = [-004, 0.13); collectivism: p = 0.36, 95% CI = [026 0.46), Z = =460, p < 001) in collectivstie countries than in individvalistic countries For Hypothesis 7f, although the corrected correlation between PEP and intsinsic motivation in collectivstic countries (p = 0.17, 95% CI = [0.08, 0125)) was greater than the corrected correlation in individualistic countries (p = 008, 959% CI = [-0.09, 0.19), the statistic Z is not significant (2. = 142, p = 015). Thus, Hypothesis 7F was not strongly supported. Finally, Hypothesis 7g was not supported, a there was no significant difference in effect sizes between studies from collectivstc countries and studies from individualistic countries (individualism: p = 0.26, 95% CI = 007, 0.4]; collectivism: p = 015, 95% CI = [-005, 036), Z = 075, p z ° 9: Supplemental analysis of publication status We conducted a post hoe analysis to examine whether publication status could bea moderator to explain the variability between studies. As shown in Table 8, the corrected correlation, between PEP and task performance in published studies (p 035, 95% Cl = [0.28, 0.42)) was signiicantly greater than the corrected correlation in unpublished studies (p = 0.13, 95% CI = [007, 019]; Z = 496, p < 001). There appears t be an upward bias in the published literature fon the strength of the relationship between PED and task performance. However, there was no significant difference in sffoct sizes hetween published studies (p = 0.11, 95% Cl [-001, 0.23)) and unpublished studies in the relationship of PEP and contextual performance (p = 0.28, 95% CI = [o10, 0.47); Z = 148, p = 0.14). In the relationship of PEP and distributive justice, our results illustrated that unpublished studies (p = 0.57, 95% CI = (0.45, 0.70)) had significantly larger effet sizes than published studies ( 0.19, 95% CI = [001, 0.36]; 2 = —367, p < 0.01). Similar results were found in the tests of the relationship between PEP and pay satisfaction (Z = 4.00, p < 001), and PFP and pressure (Z = -197, p = 005). Thus, publication status was a striking moderator in explaining the variability between these relationships. Finally, our post oc analysis also indicated that there were non-significant diflerences between published and unpublished studies in the relationship between PEP and procedural justice (Z = —124, p = 021) and the relationship between PEP and intrinsic motivation (2 = —058 p=056) 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, Discussion Theoretical implications First, we deepen the current researchs understanding of the relationship between PEP and performanee by focusing on those studies that examine it in real work settings. After our literature review, we found that previous meta-analyses of the PEP-performance relationship have included only experimental studies in the analysis (Jenkins et al, 1998; Weibel et al, 2010). The experimental research approach bears a strong trace of artificiality, and the strict control of conditions to a certain extent makes the research context detached from social life realty, which affects the generalization and application of research findings (Rynes and Bono, 2000; Garbers and ‘Konrad, 2014). Infact, unlike experimental studies that mostly consider only the presence or absence of incentives, the actual organizational practice also involves more complex factors such asthe design of incentive intensity, pay gap design, and employee cognitive psychology, which can be better reflected in field survey studies. In addition, experimental studies may have treater effects than field survey studies (Henderson and Horan, 202). By inluding field survey studies in our meta-analysis, wwe were able to have a closer approximation to the true PEP. performance relationship and also to correct the mean effect, sizes that were inflated by previous studies. Second, our results confirmed the positive effects of PEP ‘on jab performance inthe workplace, especially the diferential effects on two aspects of performance: task performance tnd contextual performance. There have been conflicting findings in studies on the effect of PFP on performance, probably because researchers have conflated different aspects of performance. Some studies discussed the impact of PEP on coveral performance in an integrated manner, whilesome articles only explored the rleof PEP on task-related performance. They all claimed that they studied the relationship between PEP and performance. Our study not only found a positive effect of PEP fon overall job performance but also further distinguished the role of PEP on task performance and contextual performance. Our results indicated a significant positive effect of PFP on both aspects of job performance (ie, tak performance and contextual performance), with the relationship between PEP nd task performance being stronger than the relationship between PFP and contestual performance. Tie finding not only clarifies the differential effect of PEP on in-role performance (Cask performance) and extrarole performance (contextual performance), but also helps to respond to the current theoretical conflict over the relationship hetween PEP and job performance, These conclusions shift the debate from “whether PEP motivates employee job performance” to “why DEP affects some performance (task performance) more than others (contextual performance)” which is the issue we are trying to address through MASEM, 10:33rtpsyg.2022 1030375, Chen eta no hpapdes panog dnp any 49 pl. say eS PENA FAA SEH HS "mn pss pos es pon a 2s en uM pen we | wo wo | wo | wo | ov | wo | we t posed sro>dui-=2 | wre | re wo woe) grotto | sore) wae oo ‘unsaid ao | wo | mo | mo | sro) ety | ome | sy | aict ” presen oon dso = 2 we | ao | we | oo | sro | cro | wo | ow | ouv | or Pore ‘vonenous sun ws | oe | oe | ee | co | me | mo | om | wm | 6 een 00> wer-=7 wo) ow) tee) woe Pe wonDersnes fe corse | wo | wo- | wo) mote |e) ee] eo) net pend woedwei-=z | aver | wo | oo | «o | wo | wo | oo | wo | ee | ow | a Pree sopsnfyeanpesoid we | sco | uo | ow | oro | ae | sro | om | me | 6 avenge 90> Fave =z we | om | oo | wo | eo | «we | oo | oe | am |< oven sopsnf annnausig ~svoe | wo | wr | oo | oro | sro | eo | eo | ee | met awsendun wosdavin=z | soiee | ore | a | wo | wo | eo | wo | wo | wo | a | a Poe ‘souewwojad yerix=1U05 ne wo | wo | at) wy) oy ary |u| tre | nares | posed we>dvaraz | acar | eo | are | wo | wo | ov | wo | eo | oo | «ow | cw Pe souewwoyod se, Ero ‘sownayno pue dia uoemog sdysuonees uo ses uoneDnend jo 2849 BUNEAPON 8 318VL “Third, based on the cognitive evaluation perspective, we introduced two mediating variable, intrinsic motivation, and presse, 0 integrate the positive and negative effects of PEP on job performance in one framework, Previous scholars of PEP rescarch have often one sidedly emphasized the informational or controling nature of PFR, ignoring the dual nature of PEP. Studies with a postive view of PEP arguc that PEP gives individuals positive feedback that makes them mote willing to work hard to achieve thei gol The informational nature of PEP is seen as a facilitator of intrinsic motivation, enhancing individual intrinsic interest in work and reducing vigilance against low performance (Desi and Ryan, 1985). Studs with a negative view of PEP argue that PEP undermines individuals) perceptions of the value and meaning of thei work, creating negative effect on intrinsic motivation, oF what motivational crowding theory calls “crovaing-ot elect” (Grey and Obetholner-Gee, 1987). This neativeefet makes the individual over focused on the value ofthe reward and thus stressed performance goals (Fang and Gerhart, 2012), When stressed, employees wil perceive themsclis as being contelled by the PRP (Deci and Ryan, 1985) The controling nature of PP is seen a a catalyst fr individual pressure, reducing employees positive feedback on their work and individual ob performance. vr integrative structaral equation modeling meta-analysis revealed that the scemingly paradoxical information nature of PRP and the controlling nature of PEP go hand in hand, a PEP can hoth promote task performance and contextual performance {hough in tivation, and reduce task performance and contextual performance through pressure. In other words, PEP can negatively and positively afet individual ob performance. Especially, our results show that the negative indizect fot of PEP on task performance through presse i significantly smaller than the postive inditect effect of PRP on task performance through intinsic motivation (contrast esta 0.06, 958% CI |[-0.07, -0.05), and sina results are obtained when the outcome variable i contextual performance (contrast estimate = ~005, 95% Cl [-0.06, ~0.04)). This suggests that the poritive effects of PEP clearly outweigh the negative effst it brings, which to some extent responds to the doubts about the role of PEP in current PP studs (Deci cal, 1999; Pink, 200% Freyand Osteloh, 212) Fourth, we explored the mechanism of PFPS effct on jb performance feom an equity perspective and found that diferent performance aspects have diferent generative logic. Especially, it appears that the effect of PEP on task performance is primarily driven by distributive justice. These findings were in line with previous research, which stated that distributive justice was more related to personal outcomes (eg, task performance, job safiction) than procedural justice, whereas procedural justice was more elated to organizational outcomes (eq, organizational

    You might also like