Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: CEO Compensation

Taekjin, S. (2013). Fair pay or power play? Pay equity, managerial power, and compensation adjustments for CEOs. Journal of Management, 42, 419–448.

Abstract: This study examines how firms use benchmarking information about peers to determine the compensation that they offer to chief executive officers (CEOs). It jointly addresses two distinct perspectives: pay equity and managerial power. Pay inequity provides strong motivation for CEOs to restore equity, by promoting the logic of external fairness and urging boards of directors to implement peer benchmarking and adjust the focal CEO’s compensation levels. Although pay inequity may motivate CEOs to restore equity, their reaction to inequity may be effective only when they have sufficient power over the board of directors to influence the pay-setting process. Results from a sample of 1,555 CEOs generally support predictions about the moderating effects of CEO power in the relationship between a focal CEO’s pay and peer CEOs’ pay. The compensation for underpaid CEOs with relatively greater power over the board is associated with their peers’ compensation, suggesting that peer benchmarking is more aggressively used to adjust CEO compensation upward. For overpaid CEOs, the relationship between the focal CEO’s pay and peer CEOs’ pay is weaker when the CEOs have greater influence over the board, suggesting that such CEOs are able to avoid the use of benchmarking and downward adjustments of pay.

Journal Article 2: 360-Degree Ratings

Sabrina, S., Cox, J. F., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1997). in the eye of the beholder: how leadership relates to 360-degree performance ratings. Group Organization Management, 22, 185–209.

Abstract: This longitudinal field study examined how leader behavior influences performance ratings of leaders, and the extent to which this relationship depends on the person rating the leader. The study was not a direct probe of 360-degree performance evaluation, yet the results are especially informative with regard to this relatively new approach to evaluating performance. Results indicate differences in the way leader behavior correlated with subsequent performance ratings, depending on who completed the rating. Leaders who were seen as challenging the status quo and encouraging subordinates' independent action were rated lower by their superior managers, but rated higher by their subordinates. Discussion speculates about the possible reasons underlying these findings, especially the role of the person doing the rating. The authors conclude that lack of convergence of ratings from different sources is not necessarily rater "error" but can stem from legitimate differences in the structural role of the person rating the leader.

Journal Article 3: Seeking Feedback

Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Vande Walle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29, 773–799.

Abstract: This paper presents and organizes the results of two decades of research on feedback-seeking behavior according to three motives: the instrumental motive to achieve a goal, the ego-based motive to protect one’s ego, and the image-based motive to enhance and protect one’s image in an organization. Each motive is discussed with reference to its impact on the frequency of feedback seeking, seeking method (whether by inquiry or monitoring), timing of feedback seeking, choice of the target of feedback seeking, and the topic on which feedback is sought. The role of context in influencing these patterns is also discussed. Issues in the literature are identified throughout, and the review ends by identifying five promising areas for future research.