高管团队权力和薪酬构成对高管离职的跨层影响

卫旭华, 王傲晨

卫旭华, 王傲晨. 高管团队权力和薪酬构成对高管离职的跨层影响[J]. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, (4): 97-107.
引用本文: 卫旭华, 王傲晨. 高管团队权力和薪酬构成对高管离职的跨层影响[J]. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2019, (4): 97-107.
WEI Xu-hua, WANG Ao-chen. Cross-level Effects of Top Management Team Power and Compensation Composition on Top Managers' Turnover[J]. Journal of South China normal University (Social Science Edition), 2019, (4): 97-107.
Citation: WEI Xu-hua, WANG Ao-chen. Cross-level Effects of Top Management Team Power and Compensation Composition on Top Managers' Turnover[J]. Journal of South China normal University (Social Science Edition), 2019, (4): 97-107.

高管团队权力和薪酬构成对高管离职的跨层影响

基金项目: 

国家自然科学基金青年项目“组织内成员地位的形成及影响机制研究:基于中国文化的视角” 71602080

教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“关系型人力资源实践前因及后果的实验研究” 16YJC630132

中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目“医生职业身份威胁的形成机理与干预机制” 2019JBKYZY024

详细信息
    作者简介:

    卫旭华,河南孟津人,兰州大学管理学院教授

    王傲晨,山东德州人,兰州大学管理学院硕士研究生

  • 中图分类号: F272.9

Cross-level Effects of Top Management Team Power and Compensation Composition on Top Managers' Turnover

  • 摘要: 基于组织等级理论和公平理论的基本假定,以2011—2016年2 732家沪深两市A股上市企业的高管为样本,探索高管团队权力和薪酬构成对高管下一年个人离职行为的跨层影响,结果发现,高管团队权力和薪酬构成特征对高管离职的影响具有较大差异。从个人层面来看,高管与其他成员的权力差异能够显著抑制高管下一年的离职行为,且高管的权力水平加强了权力差异与高管离职之间的负向关系;然而,高管与其他成员的薪酬差异对其下一年的离职行为却具有显著的促进作用,且高管的薪酬水平削弱了薪酬差异与高管离职之间的正向关系。从团队跨层影响来看,高管团队权力不平等对高管下一年的离职行为有显著的抑制作用,而薪酬不平等则显著促进了高管个人的离职行为。
    Abstract: Based on the basic assumptions of organizational hierarchy theory and equity theory, this study used top managers from 2 732 A-share listed companies in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets from 2011 to 2016 as a sample and explored the cross-level effects of top management team (TMT) power and compensation composition on top managers' turnover in the next year. The results showed that the influences of TMT power and compensation composition on top managers' turnover were quite different. At the individual level, power dissimilarity between top managers and other TMT members significantly reduced top managers' turnover in the next year, and top managers' power level strengthened the negative relationship between power dissimilarity and top managers' turnover. However, compensation dissimilarity between top managers and other TMT members significantly promoted top managers' turnover in the next year, and top managers' compensation level weakened the positive relationship between compensation dissimilarity and top managers' turnover. At the team level, TMT power inequality significantly reduced top managers' turnover in the next year, whereas TMT compensation inequality significantly promoted top managers' turnover in the next year.
  • 图  1   个人差异

    图  2   团队多元化

    图  3   研究模型

    图  4   高管权力的调节作用

    图  5   高管薪酬的调节作用

    表  1   高管个人层面变量描述统计和相关矩阵

    变量 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    1.性别 1.000
    2.年龄 0.120*** 1.000
    3.学历 0.034** -0.084*** 1.000
    4.权力 0.095*** 0.147*** 0.067*** 1.000
    5.薪酬 0.061*** 0.164*** 0.204*** 0.130*** 1.000
    6.年龄差异 -0.050*** 0.037*** -0.123*** 0.024*** -0.100*** 1.000
    7.学历差异 0.018*** 0.062*** -0.137*** 0.007* -0.034*** 0.121*** 1.000
    8.权力差异 0.037*** 0.071*** 0.021*** 0.827*** 0.053*** 0.061*** 0.009** 1.000
    9.薪酬差异 -0.013*** -0.029*** 0.023*** 0.084*** -0.229*** 0.104*** 0.039*** 0.071*** 1.000
    10.离职 0.011*** 0.064*** -0.009** -0.048*** -0.166*** 0.062*** 0.031*** -0.056*** 0.239*** 1.000
    均值 0.860 46.794 3.280 1.200 12.825 7.435 0.901 0.583 0.542 0.100
    标准差 0.348 6.789 0.848 0.488 0.850 3.441 0.410 0.336 0.445 0.297
    注:N=86 271;*p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.001。
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  2   高管团队及企业层面变量描述统计和相关矩阵

    变量 均值 标准差 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
    1.企业规模 22.007 1.473 1
    2.企业经营绩效 4.901 99.531 -0.039*** 1
    3.TMT性别比例 0.149 0.153 -0.164*** -0.006 1
    4.TMT年龄多元化 5.898 2.312 -0.157*** 0.034*** 0.114*** 1
    5.TMT职能背景多元化 0.447 0.201 -0.015 -0.018* -0.091*** -0.006 1
    6.TMT学历多元化 0.504 0.156 0.002 0.011 -0.015 0.124*** 0.084*** 1
    7.TMT权力不平等 0.409 0.123 -0.292*** 0.024** 0.125*** 0.110*** -0.043*** -0.045*** 1
    8.TMT薪酬不平等 0.375 0.245 -0.045*** -0.001 0.114*** 0.158*** 0.006 0.047*** 0.071*** 1
    注:N=12 196;*p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.001。
    下载: 导出CSV

    表  3   高管个人离职影响因素分析结果

    参数 模型1 模型2 模型3 模型4
    零模型 固定斜率 随机斜率 跨层主效应
    回归系数截距(γ00) 0.093***(0.001) 0.096***(0.001) 0.091***(0.001) 0.091***(0.001)
    个体层面特征
     性别(γ10) 0.019***(0.003) 0.018***(0.003) 0.018***(0.003)
     年龄(γ20) 0.006***(0.000) 0.004***(0.000) 0.004***(0.000)
     学历(γ30) -0.003*(0.001) 0.003**(0.001) 0.004***(0.001)
     薪酬(γ40) -0.106***(0.001) -0.097***(0.004) -0.112**(0.004)
     权力(γ50) 0.159***(0.009) 0.144***(0.009) 0.146***(0.009)
     年龄差异(γ60) 0.002***(0.000) 0.003***(0.004) 0.002***(0.001)
     学历差异(γ70) 0.008*(0.004) 0.010**(0.004) 0.010**(0.004)
     权力差异(γ80) -0.357***(0.015) -0.301***(0.015) -0.308***(0.015)
     薪酬差异(γ90) 0.183***(0.009) 0.145***(0.009) 0.146***(0.009)
     权力×权力差异(γ100) -0.002***(0.000) -0.003***(0.000) -0.002***(0.001)
     薪酬×薪酬差异(γ110) 0.006***(0.000) -0.006***(0.001) -0.003**(0.001)
    团队层面特征
     企业规模(γ01) 0.001(0.001)
     企业经营绩效(γ02) -0.000(0.000)
     性别比例(γ03) -0.015*(0.008)
     年龄多元化(γ04) 0.002***(0.001)
     职能背景多元化(γ05) -0.001(0.006)
     学历多元化(γ06) 0.041***(0.007)
     权力不平等(γ07) -0.180***(0.010)
     薪酬不平等(γ08) 0.180***(0.007)
    方差成分
     残差(σ2) 0.080(0.087) 0.072(0.270) 0.049(0.221) 0.049(0.221)
     截距(τ00) 0.008(0.283) 0.009(0.093) 0.011(0.104) 0.009(0.096)
    个体层面R2 8.795% 32.759%
    团队/企业层面R2 14.968%
    偏差统计量 33 010.276 26 176.361 14 249.466 12 707.731
    估计参数个数 3 14 58 66
    似然比检验(χ2) - 6 833.915*** 11 926.895*** 1 541.735***
    注:*p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.001;括号内数字为标准误;表中为非标准化系数。
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1]

    D. GEORGAKAKIS, P. GREVE, W. RUIGROK. Top Management Team Faultlines and Firm Performance: Examining the CEO-TMT Interface. Leadership Quarterly, 2017, 28(6): 741—758. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.03.004

    [2]

    B. L. CONNELLY, K. T. HAYNES, L. TIHANYI, et al. Minding the Gap: Antecedents and Consequences of Top Management-to-worker Pay Dispersion. Journal of Management, 2016, 42(4): 862—885. doi: 10.1177/0149206313503015

    [3]

    S. NIELSEN. Top Management Team Diversity: A Review of Theories and Methodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2010, 12(3): 301—316. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=c67addb31bcf47fd04a334560a055c9c&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [4]

    S. PISSARIS, A. HEAVEY, P. GOLDEN. Executive Pay Matters: Looking Beyond the CEO to Explore Implications of Pay Disparity on Non-CEO Executive Turnover and Firm Performance. Human Resource Management, 2017, 56(2): 307—327. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21766

    [5]

    S. CARNAHAN, R. AGARWAL, B. A. CAMPBELL. Heterogeneity in Turnover: The Effect of Relative Compensation Dispersion of Firms on the Mobility and Entrepreneurship of Extreme Performers. Strategic Management Journal, 2012, 33(12): 1411—1430. doi: 10.1002/smj.1991

    [6]

    J. W. RIDGE, A. D. HILL, F. AIME. Implications of Multiple Concurrent Pay Comparisons for Top-team Turnover. Journal of Management, 2017, 43(3): 671—690. doi: 10.1177/0149206314539349

    [7]

    M. F. WIERSEMA, A. BIRD. Organizational Demography in Japanese Firms: Group Heterogeneity, Individual Dissimilarity, and Top Management Team Turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 1993, 36(5): 996—1025. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=b180f8c94f8e4b2e108b0b87f2d02470&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [8]

    S. E. JACKSON, J. F. BRETT, V. I. SESSA, et al.Some Differences Make a Difference: Individual Dissimilarity and Group Heterogeneity as Correlates of Recruitment, Promotions, and Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, 76(5): 675—689. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.675

    [9]

    Y. R. F. GUILLAUME, F. C. BRODBECK, M. RIKETTA. Surface- and-deep-level Dissimilarity Effects on Social Integration and Individual Effectiveness Related Outcomes in Work Groups: A Meta-analytic Integration. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2012, 85(1): 80—115. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02005.x

    [10]

    H. VAN DIJK, B. MEYER, M. VAN ENGEN, et al. Microdynamics in Diverse Teams: A Review and Integration of the Diversity and Stereotyping Literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 2017, 11(1): 517—557. doi: 10.5465/annals.2014.0046

    [11]

    D. A. HARRISON, K. J. KLEIN.What's the Difference? Diversity Constructs as Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2007, 32(4): 1199—1228. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.26586096

    [12] 卫旭华, 刘咏梅, 车小玲.中国上市企业高管离职影响因素的跨层研究.管理科学, 2013, 26(6): 71—82. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jcjj201306007
    [13]

    J. G. MESSERSMITH, J. P. GUTHRIE, Y. Y. JI, et al.Executive Turnover: The Influence of Dispersion and Other Pay System Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011, 96(3): 457—469. doi: 10.1037/a0021654

    [14]

    J. S. BUNDERSON, G. S. V. D. VEGT. Diversity and Inequality in Management Teams: A Review and Integration of Research on Vertical and Horizontal Member Differences. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 2018, 5(1): 47—73. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=e545f78a5db44de83d165045ba7f5126&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [15]

    J. C. MAGEE, A. D. GALINSKY. Social Hierarchy: The Self-reinforcing Nature of Power and Status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2008, 2(1): 351—398. doi: 10.5465/19416520802211628

    [16]

    J. S. ADAMS. Towards an Understanding of Inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67(5): 422—436. doi: 10.1037/h0040968

    [17]

    D. C. HAMBRICK.Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. Academy of Management Review, 2007, 32(2): 334—343. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.24345254

    [18]

    K. B. BAE, M. SABHARWAL, A. E. SMITH, et al.Does Demographic Dissimilarity Matter for Perceived Inclusion? Evidence from Public Sector Employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 2017, 37(1): 4—22. doi: 10.1177/0734371X16671367

    [19]

    X. WEI, N. J. ALLEN, Y. LIU. Disparity in Organizational Research: How Should We Measure It? Behavior Research Methods, 2016, 48(1): 72—90. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0585-0

    [20]

    L. GREER, B. D. JONG, M. SCHOUTEN, et al.Why and When Hierarchy Impacts Team Effectiveness: A Meta-analytic Integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2018, 103(6): 591—613. doi: 10.1037/apl0000291

    [21]

    N. A. HAYS, C. BENDERSKY. Not All Inequality Is Created Equal: Effects of Status Versus Power Hierarchies on Competition for Upward Mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015, 108(6): 867—882. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000017

    [22]

    N. HALEVY, E. Y. CHOU, A. D. GALINSKY. A Functional Model of Hierarchy: Why, How, and When Vertical Differentiation Enhances Group Performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 2011, 1(1): 32—52. doi: 10.1177/2041386610380991

    [23]

    J. V. D. TOORN, M. FEINBERG, J. T. JOST, et al. A Sense of Powerlessness Fosters System Justification: Implications for the Legitimation of Authority, Hierarchy, and Government. Political Psychology, 2015, 36(1): 93—110. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=78e1672bf89920a3b5b45e5980772241&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [24]

    T. SHIN. Fair Pay or Power Play? Pay Equity, Managerial Power, and Compensation Adjustments for CEOs. Journal of Management, 2016, 42(2): 419—448. doi: 10.1177/0149206313478186

    [25]

    E. M. ANICICH, N. J. FAST, N. HALEVY, et al. When the Bases of Social Hierarchy Collide: Power without Status Drives Interpersonal Conflict. Organization Science, 2016, 27(1): 123—140. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=c404aa221a1dccb983c686d4eefd969c&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [26]

    M. TARAKCI, L. L. GREER, P. J. GROENEN.When Does Power Disparity Help or Hurt Group Performance?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2016, 101(3): 415—429. doi: 10.1037/apl0000056

    [27] 卫旭华, 刘咏梅, 岳柳青.高管团队权力不平等对企业创新强度的影响——有调节的中介效应.南开管理评论, 2015, 18(3): 24—33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2015.03.004
    [28]

    R. KRAUSE, R. PRIEM, L. LOVE. Who's in Charge Here? Co-CEOs, Power Gaps, and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 2015, 36(13): 2099—2110. doi: 10.1002/smj.2325

    [29] 张正堂, 刘颖, 王亚蓓.团队薪酬、任务互依性对团队绩效的影响研究.南开管理评论, 2014, 17(3): 112—121. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2014.03.012
    [30] 吴婷, 张正堂.积极心态的员工更认同组织吗——匹配视角下心理韧性对员工组织认同的影响.财贸研究, 2017(4): 101—109. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/96680X/201704/672410454.html
    [31] 张兴亮, 夏成才.非CEO高管患寡还是患不均.中国工业经济, 2016(9): 144—160. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zggyjj201609009
    [32]

    A. ERT RK. Influences of HR Practices, Social Exchange, and Trust on Turnover Intentions of Public It Professionals. Public Personnel Management, 2014, 43(1): 140—175. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=211efe0b83f86783166edca12a53549c&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn

    [33]

    E. DAVID, D. AVERY, A. WITT, et al. A Time-Lagged Investigation of the Impact of Coworker Behavior on the Effects of Demographic Dissimilarity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2015, 36(4): 582—606. doi: 10.1002/job.1999

    [34] 周建, 李小青.董事会认知异质性对企业创新战略影响的实证研究.管理科学, 2013, 25(6): 1—12. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/jcjj201206001
    [35] 方杰, 邱皓政, 张敏强, 等.我国近十年来心理学研究中HLM方法的应用述评.心理科学, 2013(5): 1194—1200. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/Conference/7979470
    [36]

    J. W. RIDGE, F. AIME, M. A. WHITE. When Much More of a Difference Makes a Difference: Social Comparison and Tournaments in the CEO's Top Team. Strategic Management Journal, 2015, 36(4): 618—636. doi: 10.1002/smj.2227

    [37]

    S. FINKELSTEIN. Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 1992, 35(3): 505—538. doi: 10.2307-256485/

图(5)  /  表(3)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  2695
  • HTML全文浏览量:  728
  • PDF下载量:  86
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2018-02-17
  • 网络出版日期:  2021-03-21
  • 刊出日期:  2019-07-24

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回