This week, you will submit the annotated bibliography introduced in Week 3

This week, you will submit the annotated bibliography introduced in Week 3. This annotated bibliography will consist of an introduction, followed by Two Quantitative article annotations (one has already been completed- Attached in Word Document Below), Two Qualitative article annotations (one has already been completed-Attached in Word Document below), and TWO Mixed Methods article annotations for a total of six annotations, followed by a conclusion. (All Articles are Attached)

An annotated bibliography is a document containing selected sources accompanied by a respective annotation. Each annotation consists of a summary, analysis, and application for the purpose of conveying the relevance and value of the selected source. As such, annotations demonstrate a writer’s critical thinking about and authority on the topic represented in the sources.

In preparation for your own future research, an annotated bibliography provides a background for understanding a portion of the existing literature on a particular topic. It is also a useful precursor for gathering sources in preparation for writing a subsequent literature review.

Please review the assignment instructions below and click on the underlined words for information about how to craft each component of an annotation.

It is recommended that you use the grading rubric as a self-evaluation tool before submitting your assignment.

Submit: 

  • Use the Walden library databases to search for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research articles from peer-reviewed journals on your topic of interest.
  • Before you read the full article and begin your annotation, locate the methodology section in the article to be sure that it describes the appropriate research design.
    • For quantitative research articles, confirm that a quantitative research design, such as a quasi-experimental, casual comparative, correlational, pretest–posttest, or true experimental, was used in the study.
    • For qualitative research articles, confirm that a qualitative research design or approach, such as narrative, ethnographic, grounded theory, case study, or phenomenology, was used in the study.
    • For mixed methods research articles, confirm that a mixed methods research (MMR) design was used in the study. There are several design classifications in MMR; some examples of MMR types or families of design are parallel, concurrent, sequential, multilevel, or fully integrated mixed methods design.
  • Prepare an annotated bibliography that includes the following:
    • A one-paragraph introduction that provides context for why you selected the six research articles you did: two quantitative, two qualitative, and two MMR.
    • A reference list entry in APA Style for each of the six articles that follows proper formatting. Follow each reference list entry with a three-paragraph annotation that includes:
      • A summary
      • An analysis
      • An application as illustrated in this example
    • A one-paragraph conclusion that presents a synthesis of the six articles.
  • Format your annotated bibliography in Times New Roman, 12-point font, double-spaced. A separate References list page is not needed for this assignment.

2Stephen J. Perkins, 3Jason D. Shaw, 4 and Matti Vartiainen 5 1Work and Organizational Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Germany2Department Entrepreneurship, Governance and Strategy Area, Vlerick Business School, Belgium3Global Policy Institute, London Metropolitan University, UK4Faculty of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China5Work Psychology and Leadership, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, School of Science, Aalto University, Finland Companies invest enormous financial resources in reward systems and practices to attract, retain, and motivate employees and thereby ensure and improve individual, team, and organizational effectiveness. Organizational rewards comprise financial and nonfinancial rewards, such as appreciation, job security, and promotion. Financial rewards, also called tangible rewards, include direct forms (such as fixed and variable pay and share ownership) as well as indirect and/or deferred forms (such as benefits and perquisites). Fixed or base pay refers to the amount of money one receives in return for fulfilling one’sjob requirements, the job’s grade, or the skill or competence level required to perform the tasks. Variable pay (such as cash bonuses and commissions as forms of short-term incentives, or stocks or stock options as forms of long-term incentives) depends, for example, on individual, team, and/or company performance or outcomes, and is based on quantitative and/or qualitative criteria. Benefits (such as pension plans or health programs) and perquisites (such as onsite fitness centers, medical care or health facilities, and company cars), among other forms, are indirect finan- cial rewards (Milkovich, Newman, & Gerhart,2016). Both qualitative reviews (Gerhart & Fang,2014;Shaw&Gupta, 2015) and meta-analytic studies (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014; Garbers & Konradt,2014;Jenkins,Mitra,Gupta,& Shaw,1998) have shown that extrinsic rewards (such as financial incentives) can improve employee motivation and performance and shape employee health (Giles, Robalino, McColl, Sniehotta, & Adams,2014)andsafety behavior (Mattson, Torbiörn, & Hellgren,2014). However, empirical evidence regarding under which conditionsparticular rewards are most effective or lead to unintended consequences is still scarce. In short, compensation and incentive systems remain one of the most under-researched areas in personnel psychology and human resource management (Gupta & Shaw,2015).

This state of affairs poses risks. Reward management approaches may waste both money and effort, and may be ineffective in attracting, retaining, and motivating target personnel, if not grounded in a base of evidence. Added to this, in the face of the recent financial crisis and of serious cases of employee and company unethical behavior, company’s financial incentives, especially bonus and pay- for-performance (pfp) systems, have been widely criticized for their detrimental effects on individuals, companies, and society (Larcker, Ormazabal, Tayan, & Taylor,2014). These examples of the dark sides of incentives highlight the importance of reward management research, not only from a human resources management (HRM) but also from a societal perspective. They also illustrate the need to understand the underlying mediating and moderating mechanisms linking reward systems and practices to indi- vidual, team, and organizational behavior and outcomes.

This special issue contributes to the research on reward management by focusing on the contextual effects of financial rewards on employee motivation, behavior, and performance, and by analyzing the mediating mechanisms of different types of financial and nonfinancial rewards.

The four studies included in this special issue address different issues of reward management research and take different theoretical perspectives. The first two studies analyze the interaction effects of financial incentives and 2017 Hogrefe PublishingJournal of Personnel Psychology(2017),16(2), 57–60 DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000187 individual factors, such as employee perceptions of dis- tributive justice, and then how individual competitiveness moderates the effects of pay-for-performance (pfp) on employee motivation, behavior, and performance. These studies show which and how intended or unintended conse- quences of pfp occur. The other two studies differentiate the effects of tangible and intangible rewards on employee turnover and risk taking; they disentangle underlying mediating and moderating mechanisms by comparing the effects of benefits and perquisites, and of esteem, security, and promotion as nonfinancial rewards. In the following passages, we present a short overview of these four papers before we discuss their contribution and their implications for further research.

One of the most discussed unintended consequences of financial rewards has been the assumed erosion of intrinsic motivation, also called the crowding-out or undermining effect of extrinsic incentives. This effect is suggested by proponents of the cognitive evaluation theory and is primarily based on findings in nonwork settings or with child samples, or in situations where rewards have been suspended without explanation (e.g., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan,1999;Weibel,Rost,&Osterloh,2010). In contrast, the findings of primary and meta-analytic studies typically do not show a crowding-out effect of extrinsic incentives (Gerhart & Fang,2014), and rather demonstrate that intrin- sic motivation increases in the presence of financial incen- tives (Giles et al.,2014). As a consequence, research has started to reconcile these conflicting findings with the assumptions of cognitive evaluation and self-determination theories. Thibault Landry and colleagues (2017)contribute to this research by analyzing whether financial incentive systems can satisfy employees’need for autonomy and com- petence (when bonuses are fairly distributed, thus strength- ening autonomy and motivation) and finally improve work performance. They conducted three field studies: one cross-sectional field study in Greece using a diverse sample of professions, and two longitudinal studies in Canada with samples of high-tech workers and financial advisors who received performance-contingent annual bonuses. Findings of all three studies show that distributive justice moderates the relationship between financial incentives and autonomy need satisfaction. In two of the three studies, distributive justice also moderated the relation between financial incen- tives and competence need satisfaction. Enhancing and buffering effects of distributive justice on the relation between financial incentives and need satisfaction vary across studies depending on the positive or negative relationship between financial incentives and competence and autonomy need satisfaction. By and large, study find- ings support the hypothesis that financial incentive sys- tems can satisfy employees’need for autonomy and competence, when bonuses are fairly distributed. In thesecases, bonuses strengthen autonomous motivation and ultimately improve work performance. Thus, compensation plans using financial incentives such as annual bonuses can be effective, when rewards are distributed fairly. However, the varying positive or negative relation between financial incentives and need satisfaction across studies also indicates that other variables might influence how financial incentives are perceived.

Another often discussed potential unintended effect of financial incentives has been that individual pfp decreases cooperation and might even increase deviant behavior, such as harming others or sabotage (Gerhart & Fang, 2014). Gläser, van Gils, and Van Quaquebeke (2017) contribute to this debate and show, with varying study designs, that the degree of individual trait and state com- petitiveness can influence how employees perceive pfp and react to it with deviant behavior. Their results are based on three studies. In the first cross-sectional study, employees from different German organizations receiving performance-contingent annual lump-sum bonuses partici- pated online. Then, two online experiments were done with participants from digital panel studies and Amazon Mechanical Turk taking part in competitive dice games, where in one study only the winner was rewarded, while in the other study every player was able to win the bonus.

Their findings indicate that pfp programs can increase employees’interpersonal deviance, that is, active harming behavior toward coworkers, when employees are high in individual competitiveness, that is, have a strong desire for interpersonal comparison and wish to be better than others. No significant relationship between pfp size and interpersonal deviance was found for participants low in trait or state competitiveness.

While the first two studies in this issue focus on moderating effects of pfp, the following two studies address the differential effects and mediating mechanisms of indi- rect forms of pay and of nonfinancial incentives on turnover and risk taking. Particularly in highly competitive labor markets, such as the information and communications technology (ICT) sector, companies not only offer attractive salaries, but also benefits (such as pension and private medical insurance plans) and, more recently, even perqui- sites (such as an onsite fitness center, medical care facili- ties, or paid meals) to make employees feel that they are valued. In turn, this is assumed to lead to better retention ofkeyemployeesandareductioninunwantedturnover (Fortune,2016). These indirect forms of pay can be quite costly and research on the comparative effects of benefits and perquisites on turnover is still scarce. Renaud, Morin, and Béchard (2017) contribute to this topic by comparing the longitudinal impact of perquisites and traditional bene- fit packages on the intention to stay and by analyzing the mediating role of affective organizational commitment. 58Editorial Journal of Personnel Psychology(2017),16(2), 57–60 2017 Hogrefe Publishing In a longitudinal online study with three points of measure- ment (after6,12,and18months of participants being with the company), new employees of a Canadian company in the ICT sector reported their satisfaction with the provided perquisites and benefits, their affective organizational commitment, and their intention to stay as an indicator of employee turnover. Study findings indicate that satisfaction with traditional benefits has a stronger direct impact on intention to stay than satisfaction with perquisites.

Furthermore, when benefits and perquisites are analyzed separately, affective organizational commitment partially mediates the effect of satisfaction with traditional benefits on the intention to stay, while it fully mediates the effect of satisfaction with perquisites on the intention to stay.

Business scandals (e.g., the Enron scandal and bankruptcy in2001, and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in2008, which triggered the global financial crisis) have moved the ethical and financial risk taking of employees and managers as well as the effects of incentives to the fore in both academic and public debates. Risk management research has shown that age and financial and ethical risk taking are related. Ceschi, Costantini, Dickert, and Sartori (2017) contribute to this by analyzing whether perceived nonfinancial rewards moderate and mediate this relationship. They compare the moderating effects of esteem, security, and promotion rewards on the relationship between age and financial and ethical risk taking among managers of Italian companies. They show that age and risk taking are negatively related, that is, young managers report taking more financial and ethical risks than senior managers. Moderation analyses indicate an interac- tion effect of job promotion rewards and age: Low chances for job promotion seem to be a key factor for young managers’decisions to take financial risks, whereas no rela- tion between age and risk taking was found when high chances of job promotion were perceived. Findings also indicate that job security and promotions partially mediate the relationship between age and ethical risk taking.

In sum, the findings presented in this special issue provide at least four contributions to our understanding of the moderating conditions and mediating processes of the impact of financial and nonfinancial rewards on employee motivation, behavior, and performance. First, distributive justice perceptions can moderate the effects of financial rewards. When performance-contingent annual bonuses are perceived as distributed fairly, they can satisfy employ- ees’need for autonomy and competence, and thus strengthen autonomous motivation and, in turn, work performance. Identifying these moderating and mediating processes adds to our understanding of why crowding-out effects of extrinsic rewards do not occur. It also clarifies the validity of the assumptions of cognitive evaluation and self-determination theories. Second, competitiveness as anindividual characteristic can influence how employees perceive and react to pfp with deviant behavior. When employees have a strong desire for interpersonal compar- ison and wish to be better than others, that is, are highly competitive, pfp programs can increase employees’ interpersonal deviance, that is, active harming behavior toward coworkers.

Third, companies can achieve a stronger effect on inten- tion to stay with offering benefits (e.g., private medical insurance plans) than perquisites (e.g., onsite medical care facilities). Employees’satisfaction with benefits seems to increase their intention to stay both directly and indirectly via enhancing affective organizational commitment, whereas satisfaction with perquisites seems to have only an indirect effect via commitment. Fourth, young managers report more financial and ethical risk taking than senior managers. Young managers’financial risk taking seems to depend on their perceived chances of job promotion, as no relation between age and risk taking was found when high chances of job promotion were perceived.

We hope that this special issue stimulates further longitu- dinal, mixed-methods, and multilevel research to compare the effects of specific reward types and practices on employee motivation and on individual, team, and organiza- tional outcomes. There is a need to analyze the underlying mediating mechanisms and to identify individual, team, or organizational level variables moderating these relation- ships. The four studies in this issue address only a few of the open research questions highlighted in our call for papers, and other issues could be added. Furthermore, the studies in this issue focus only on the individual level of analysis. Questions on how team or organizational level variables, such as work structure, leadership behavior, organizational culture, and corporate strategy, influence the relationship between specific reward types or combina- tions of different reward types and reward outcomes are open to further investigation. Thus, future research has the challenge to address multi- and cross-level effects of organizational rewards and individual, team, and organiza- tional level contingencies. Until now, empirically-based mul- tilevel reward management research has been the exception (e.g., Trevor & Wazeter,2006). However, recent conceptual papers on multilevel approaches to the effects of pay variation (Conroy, Gupta, Shaw, & Park,2014 )orteam pay-for-performance (Conroy & Gupta,2016) offer promis- ing models to guide subsequent empirical investigations. References Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict perfor- mance: A 40-year meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 140, 980–1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661 Editorial 59 2017 Hogrefe PublishingJournal of Personnel Psychology(2017),16(2), 57–60 Ceschi, A., Costantini, A., Dickert, S., & Sartori, R. (2017). The impact of occupational rewards on risk taking among managers.Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16, 105–112.

doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000184 Conroy, S. A., & Gupta, N. (2016). Team pay-for-performance: The devil is in the details.Group & Organization Management, 41, 32–65. doi: 10.1177/1059601115607746 Conroy, S. A., Gupta, N., Shaw, J. D., & Park, T. Y. (2014). A multilevel approach to the effects of pay variation.Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 32,1–64.

doi: 10.1108/S0742-730120140000032001 Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 Fortune. (2016).100 best companies to work for. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/best-companies/google-alphabet-1/ Garbers, Y., & Konradt, U. (2014). The effect of financial incentives on performance: A quantitative review of individual and team- based financial incentives.Journal of Occupational and Orga- nizational Psychology, 87, 102–137. doi: 10.1111/joop.12039 Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2014). Pay for (individual) performance:

Issues, claims, evidence and the role of sorting effects.Human Resource Management Review, 24,41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.

2013.08.010 Giles, E. L., Robalino, S., McColl, E., Sniehotta, F. F., & Adams, J.

(2014). The effectiveness of financial incentives for health behaviour change: Systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One, 9, e90347. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090347 Gläser, D., van Gils, S., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2017). Pay-for- performance and interpersonal deviance: Competitiveness as the match that lights the fire.Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16,78–91. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000181 Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (2015). Employee compensation: The neglected area of HRM research.Human Resource Manage- ment Review, 24,1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.007 Jenkins, G. D. Jr., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 777–787. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.777 Larcker, D. F., Ormazabal, G., Tayan, B., & Taylor, D. J. (2014, September).Follow the money: Compensation, risk, and the financial crisis. Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University. Closer Look Series: Topics, Issues andControversies in Corporate Governance No. CGRP-43; Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No.

14-34. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2493398.

doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2493398 Mattson, M., Torbiörn, I., & Hellgren, J. (2014). Effects of staff bonus systems on safety behaviors.Human Resource Manage- ment Review, 24,17–30. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.012 Milkovich, G., Newman, J., & Gerhart, B. (2016).Compensation (12th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Renaud, S., Morin, L., & Béchard, A. (2017). Traditional benefits versus perquisites: A longitudinal test of their differential impact on employee turnover.Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16,92–104. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000180 Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. (2015). Let the evidence speak again!

Financial incentives are more effective than we thought.

Human Resource Management Journal, 25, 281–293.

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12080 Thibault Landry, A., Gagné, M., Forest, J., Guerrero, S., Séguin, M., & Papachristopoulos, K. (2017). The relation between financial incentives, motivation, and performance: An integrative SDT- based investigation.Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16, 61–77. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000182 Trevor, C. O., & Wazeter, D. L. (2006). A contingent view of reactions to objective pay conditions: Interdependence among pay structure characteristics and pay relative to internal and external referents.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1260–1275. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1260 Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector–Benefits and (hidden) costs.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 387–412.

doi: 10.1093/jopart/mup009 Published online June 29, 2017 Conny H. Antoni Work and Organizational Psychology Department of Psychology University of Trier 54286 Trier Germany antoni@uni-trier.de 60Editorial Journal of Personnel Psychology(2017),16(2), 57–60 2017 Hogrefe Publishing

I have attached the APA Reference List and articles. 

“Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us”
Use the following coupon
FIRST15

Order Now