Abstract
AbstractThis study employs personnel data from a large university to examine how supervisors utilize information on employees' job performance in promotion decisions. The study shows that better‐performing employees are rewarded with promotions as a higher output of peer‐reviewed publications and better quality of research output are associated with a higher probability of being promoted. The study also shows that supervisors compare their subordinates' job performance when deciding on promotions: employees who outperform their colleagues in terms of research output and research quality are more likely to be promoted. Subsequently, the study provides evidence to support the key premise of the tournament theory that promotions depend on relative comparisons of employees' performance.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
