Do Performance-Based Pay and Pay Competitiveness Moderate the Relation Between Lower-Level Employees Total Compensation and Job Satisfaction? Evidence from South Korea

Decades of international multidisciplinary studies have examined how compensation affects employees and organizations, but they neither specify the boundary conditions for employee job satisfaction nor differentiate the effects of pay on job satisfaction of employees at differing tiers within an organization. We explore whether performance-based pay and pay competitiveness moderate the relation between total compensation and job satisfaction among lower-level employees in South Korea. To investigate boundary conditions for that relation, we use performance-based pay and pay competitiveness as variables that tie compensation structure to job satisfaction. Drawing from data for 2,281 employees at 470 South Korean firms, we consider how two variables—incentive compensation and pay competitiveness—influence job satisfaction of lower-level employees. First, we confirmed a positive relationship between compensation and job satisfaction, and second, we found that the relationship is stronger among employees of firms where average compensation is below what is paid elsewhere.

The Impact of Compensation Structure on Salesperson Perceptions and Behaviors: Insights From the Sales Literature

Compensation is one of the most effective methods used to align and motivate salespeople to accomplish sales and organizational objectives. For this reason, sales researchers have made considerable strides in understanding the impact that compensation structure has on salespeople and salesforce performance. In this article, we examine the theoretical foundations of the sales compensation literature. We then perform an extensive review of this literature to identify the perceptual and behavioral outcomes associated with incentive- and salary-based compensation. Finally, the limitations of the sales compensation research are identified, and future studies are proposed.

On the value(s) of time: Workers’ value of their time depends on mode of valuation

In this paper, we investigate how individuals make time–money tradeoffs in labor contexts in which they are either asked to work to earn money or to pay money to avoid work. Theory predicts that exchange rates between time and money are invariant to the elicitation method. Results from our experiments, however, show otherwise, highlighting inconsistencies in how individuals consider their time. In the first two experiments, participants work to earn money, and we compare two incentivized elicitation methods. In the first, “Fixed-Time mode,” we fix the amount of time participants need to work and elicit the minimum dollar amount they require to do the job. In the second, “Fixed-Money mode,” we fix the amount of money we pay participants and ask for the maximum amount of time they are willing to work for that pay. We similarly vary elicitation procedures in Experiment 3 for paying money to avoid work. Translating the results into pay per hour, we find that in Fixed-Time mode, valuation of time is stable across durations, based on an analytical approach. By contrast, in Fixed-Money mode, participants increase their pay-per-hour demand when the amount of money increases, indicating a less calculated and more emotional view of time. Our results demonstrate that individuals’ value of their time of labor can be fluid and dependent on the compensation structure. Our findings have implications for theories of time valuation in the labor market.

Outside Opportunities, Managerial Risk Taking, and CEO Compensation

Exploiting the setting of staggered adoption of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine (IDD) in U.S. state courts, we examine how quasi-exogenous restrictions of outside employment opportunities affect CEO compensation structure. The IDD adoption constrains executives' ability to work for competitors, which likely decreases CEOs' tendency to take risks by increasing the cost of job loss and reducing the reward to risk taking. We expect the board to respond by increasing the sensitivity of CEO wealth to stock volatility (vega) to encourage risk taking. We find a significant increase in vega post-IDD adoption. The effect is stronger among CEOs with greater career concerns. The effect also increases with the ex-ante CEO mobility and the importance of trade secrets, suggesting that the board increases vega more when there is a greater reduction in CEO outside opportunities. Overall, we provide new evidence on how external labor market frictions affect the convexity of CEO compensation.