IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijmpps/v32y2011i8p856-878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Between universality and contingency

Author

Listed:
  • Denis Chênevert
  • Michel Tremblay

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to examine whether the performance of the compensation system is better explained by the universalist approach or the contingent approach. The paper also attempts to determine the type of fit that yields the most promising gains in terms of perception of performance. Design/methodology/approach - Data were collected by questionnaire from 602 large organizations in three countries (Canada, France, and the UK), and from this, five hypotheses were formulated and tested using moderated regression analysis. Findings - The study shows that having an optimal relationship among compensation policies (intra‐activity fit) leads to a more efficient compensation system than that obtained following an alignment with business strategies (vertical strategic fit) and with organizational development strategies (internal organizational fit). However, the results suggest that the universalist perspective cannot be rejected. Practical implications - Human resources managers should exercise prudence regarding the pairing of compensation policies with various organizational characteristics, particularly those related to compensation management policies, because it is the interaction between compensation policies and their management methods that most influences the perception of performance. Of all these management policies, transparency of salary information seems to be central to the contingency perspective. Originality/value - One of the most interesting contributions of this research is the identification of negative alignments that may result in negative performance. The joint application of two compensation policies, which, individually, have a positive influence on performance, can create a negative interaction. Contingency is therefore not always desirable, and prudence is recommended in the types of alignments introduced.

Suggested Citation

  • Denis Chênevert & Michel Tremblay, 2011. "Between universality and contingency," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 32(8), pages 856-878, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijmpps:v:32:y:2011:i:8:p:856-878
    DOI: 10.1108/01437721111181642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/01437721111181642/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/01437721111181642/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/01437721111181642?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Felix R. FitzRoy & Kornelius Kraft, 1987. "Cooperation, Productivity, and Profit Sharing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(1), pages 23-35.
    2. Drago, Robert & Heywood, John S, 1992. "Is Worker Behaviour Consistent with Efficiency Wages?," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 39(2), pages 141-153, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura Arranz-Aperte & Almas Heshmati, 2004. "Determinants of Profit Sharing in the Finnish Corporate Sector," Indian Economic Review, Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, vol. 39(1), pages 55-79, January.
    2. André Zylberberg, 1990. "Salaires et emploi dans une économie de partage," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 92(1), pages 153-160.
    3. Cardoso, Renato Fragelli, 1995. "Profit Sharing With Heterogeneous Entrepreneurial Prowess," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 15(2), November.
    4. Smith, Stephen C. & Cin, Beom-Cheol & Vodopivec, Milan, 1997. "Privatization Incidence, Ownership Forms, and Firm Performance: Evidence from Slovenia," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 158-179, October.
    5. Noélie Delahaie & Richard Duhautois, 2019. "Profit‐Sharing and Wages: An Empirical Analysis Using French Data between 2000 and 2007," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 57(1), pages 107-142, March.
    6. Thomas J. Carter, 1999. "Are Wages Too Low? Empirical Implications of Efficiency Wage Models," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(3), pages 594-602, January.
    7. K Clark & M Tomlinson, 2001. "The Determinants of Work Effort: Evidence from the Employment in Britain Survey," Economics Discussion Paper Series 0113, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    8. Leila Baghdadi & Rihab Bellakhal & Marc-Arthur Diaye, 2016. "Financial Participation: Does the Risk Transfer Story Hold in France?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 54(1), pages 3-29, March.
    9. Heywood, John S. & Jirjahn, Uwe, 2009. "Profit sharing and firm size: The role of team production," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 246-258, August.
    10. Takao Kato, 2003. "The Recent Transformation of Participatory Employment Practices in Japan," NBER Chapters, in: Labor Markets and Firm Benefit Policies in Japan and the United States, pages 39-80, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Bart Cockx & Matteo Picchio, 2013. "Scarring effects of remaining unemployed for long-term unemployed school-leavers," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(4), pages 951-980, October.
    12. Jirjahn, Uwe & Kraft, Kornelius, 2006. "Do Spillovers Stimulate Incremental or Drastic Product Innovations? Hypotheses and Evidence from German Establishment Data," ZEW Discussion Papers 06-023, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Corinne Gourmel-Rouget & Véronique Bon, 2003. "Politique d’attribution différenciée de stock options : analyse des conflits d’intérêts induits et de leurs modes de résolution - Cas d’Alcatel," Revue d'Économie Financière, Programme National Persée, vol. 72(3), pages 317-336.
    14. Möller, Iris, 2000. "Produktivitätswirkung von Mitarbeiterbeteiligungen (Productivity effect of employee participation in asset formation)," Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 33(4), pages 565-582.
    15. Arrantz-Aperte, Laura & Heshmati, Almas, 2003. "Determinants of Profit Sharing in the Finnish Sector," Working Papers 492, Hanken School of Economics.
    16. Yao, Shujie, 1997. "Profit Sharing, Bonus Payment, and Productivity: A Case Study of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 281-296, June.
    17. FitzRoy, Felix & Nolan, Michael A., 2020. "Towards Economic Democracy and Social Justice: Profit Sharing, Co-Determination, and Employee Ownership," IZA Discussion Papers 13238, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Chong-En Bai & Chenggang Xu, 2001. "Ownership, Incentives and Monitoring," STICERD - Theoretical Economics Paper Series 413, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    19. Roger T. Kaufman & Raymond Russell, 1995. "GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR PROFIT SHARING, GAINSHARING, ESOPs, AND TQM," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 13(2), pages 38-48, April.
    20. Kauhanen, Antti & Piekkola, Hannu, 2002. "Profit Sharing in Finland: Earnings and Productivity Effects," Discussion Papers 817, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ijmpps:v:32:y:2011:i:8:p:856-878. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.