员工的随和性会降低全面薪酬水平吗?——来自中国文化与组织情境下的实证检验

Does the Agreeableness of Employees Reduce the Overall Salary Level? An Empirical Research in the Context of the Chinese Culture and Organizations

谭春平,景颖,王烨

2018 第 20 卷 第 04 期 页码 63-77

DOI: 10.16538/j.cnki.jsufe.2018.04.005

PDF全文下载 HTML全文

摘要

围绕员工的随和性与全面薪酬水平的关系,文章结合中国文化和管理实际,利用NEO-PIR量表和美国薪酬协会对全面薪酬的界定设计调查问卷,以中国境内包含国有企业、民营企业等在内的1 486名各类员工为样本进行问卷调查,在信度和效度分析的基础上,利用相关和多元回归分析对数据进行统计分析。结果表明,随和性会降低员工全面薪酬水平,但区别于西方组织情境,中国组织情境下员工随和性与薪酬不完全负相关,随和性与货币报酬负相关,与福利不具有相关性,与学习和发展负相关,与工作环境正相关;谦虚、利他和慈善是影响货币报酬的重要因素;顺从、坦诚和利他是影响非货币报酬的决定性变量。因此,企业应有效发挥不同人格特质员工的优势,真正做到“让雷锋不吃亏”。

Cornell University’s survey of U.S. organizations in 2016 showed that the compensations of agreeable employees were 18% lower than those of the " spontaneous” ones. The research that employee personality traits influence their salary levels is merely in Europe and the United States currently and directs to European and American organizations and cultural contexts. In the existing studies, on the one hand, the measurement of pay is economic pay and there are no total rewards to research; on the other hand, how the conclusion drawn from the Western culture and the organizational context adapts to the Chinese culture and organizations, and what is the relationship between employee’s agreeableness and salary levels in the context of the Chinese culture and organizations, domestic and foreign scholars are still relatively lacking in research. Therefore, different from the Western culture, whether the findings of Cornell University are consistent with the organizational context of traditional Chinese culture and can confirm the Chinese saying " the honest people suffer more, the squeaking wheel gets the oil” is a scientific question worth exploring.   Based on the existing research, combining the Chinese culture and the organizational context, the paper combs the scientific connotation of agreeableness and total rewards, establishes a theoretical model of the relationship between them, and uses the NEO-PIR scale and the U.S. compensation association for comprehensive compensation. The questionnaire is designed by using the NEO-PIR scale and the total rewards defined by the WorldatWork. The questionnaire survey is conducted on a sample of 1, 486 employees in state-owned enterprises and private-owned enterprises in China. On the basis of reliability and validity analyses, the data are statistically analyzed by using correlation and multiple regression analyses. The analysis results show that agreeableness will reduce the overall salary level of employees. But different from Western context of organizations, the employee agreeableness and total rewards are not completely negatively correlated in Chinese organizational context, while the agreeableness is negatively related to monetary payoff and has no correlation with benefits. Furthermore, agreeableness is negatively related to learning and development, and positively related to the work environment. Modesty, altruism and tender mindedness are the important factors that affect monetary payoff, and compliance, straight forwardness and altruism are critical variables that affect non-monetary compensation.  Based on the above conclusions, the article proposes management practice implications from two aspects of employees and organizations: employees need to make good use of " expectation management” and clearly define their core competencies and capability boundaries to break through the adverse effects of agreeableness on their total rewards; organizations should combine" humanization” and " dehumanization” to rationally and comprehensively measure the abilities and performance of agreeable employees, and effectively exert the cultural essence of Chinese " harmony” to integrate the values and create a harmonious working environment, effectively exerting the advantages of different personality traits of staff to truly " let Lei Feng not lose out”.

参考文献

6 李燕萍, 徐嘉. 基于组织认同中介作用的集体主义对工作幸福感的多层次影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 2014, (2).
13 Allport G W. Personality: A psychological interpretation[M]. New York: Henry Holt Later Printing, 1937.
14 Barrick M R, Mount M K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta‐analysis[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1991, 44(1): 1–26. DOI:10.1111/peps.1991.44.issue-1
15 Barrick M R, Stewart G L, Piotrowski M. Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 87(1): 43–51. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43
16 Barry B, Friedman R A. Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998, 74(2): 345–359. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.345
17 Benyus J M, Bremmer I, Christakis N A, et al. Breakthrough ideas for 2009[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2009, 87(2): 19–40. (未找到本条文献信息, 请核对)
18 Blickle G, Meurs J A, Zettler I, et al. Personality, political skill, and job performance[J]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2008, 72(3): 377–387. DOI:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.11.008
19 Bozionelos N. Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality, and mentoring received[J]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2004, 64(1): 24–46. DOI:10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00033-2
22 Costa P T, McCrae R R.NEO PI-R professional manual[M]. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992.
23 Digman J M. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 1990, 41(1): 417–440. DOI:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
24 Fernandes F N. Total reward-an actuarial perspective[N]. Actuarial Research Paper, 1998-08-11(6).
25 Gelissen J, De Graaf P M. Personality, social background, and occupational career success[J]. Social Science Research, 2006, 35(3): 702–726. DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.06.005
26 Goldberg L R. An alternative" description of personality": The big-five factor structure[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1990, 59(6): 1216–1229. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
27 Goldberg L R. The development of markers for the big-five factor structure[J]. Psychological Assessment, 1992, 4(1): 26–42. DOI:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26
28 Heineck G. Does it pay to be nice? Personality and earnings in the United Kingdom[J]. ILR Review, 2011, 64(5): 1020–1038. DOI:10.1177/001979391106400509
29 Hogan J, Holland B. Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003, 88(1): 100–112. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100
31 Ilies R, Scott B A, Judge T A. The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49(3): 561–575. DOI:10.5465/amj.2006.21794672
32 John O P, Srivastava S. The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives[A]. Pervin L A, John O P. Handbook of personality: Theory and research[C]. New York: Guilford Press, 1999: 102–138.
33 Judge T A, Higgins C A, Thoresen C J, et al. The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1999, 52(3): 621–652. DOI:10.1111/peps.1999.52.issue-3
34 Judge T A, Heller D, Mount M K. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2002, 87(3): 530–541. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
35 Judge T A, Livingston B A, Hurst C. Do nice guys-and gals-really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2012, 102(2): 390–407. DOI:10.1037/a0026021
36 LePine J A, Van Dyne L. Predicting voice behavior in work groups[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, 83(6): 853–868. DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853
37 Liu L A, Friedman R A, Chi S C. ‘Ren Qing’ versus the ‘Big Five’: The role of culturally sensitive measures of individual difference in distributive negotiations[J]. Management and Organization Review, 2005, 1(2): 225–247. DOI:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00010.x
38 Lounsbury J W, Gibson L W. Personal style inventory: A work-based personality measurement system[M]. Knoxville: Resource Associates, 2002.
40 Manas T M, Graham M D. Creating a total rewards strategy: A toolkit for designing business-based plans[M]. New York: American Management Association, 2003.
41 McCrae R R, Costa P T. The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989, 56(4): 586–595. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586
42 Morgeson F P, Reider M H, Campion M A. Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2005, 58(3): 583–611. DOI:10.1111/peps.2005.58.issue-3
43 Mount M K, Barrick M R, Stewart G L. Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions[J]. Human Performance, 1998, 11(2-3): 145–165. DOI:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029
44 Mueller G, Plug E, Mueller G. Estimating the effect of personality on male and female earnings[J]. ILR Review, 2006, 60(1): 3–22. DOI:10.1177/001979390606000101
45 Ng T W H, Eby L T, Sorensen K L, et al. Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta‐analysis[J]. Personnel Psychology, 2005, 58(2): 367–408. DOI:10.1111/peps.2005.58.issue-2
46 Paulhus D L, Trapnell P D. Self-presentation of personality: An agency-communion framework[A]. John O P, Robins R W, Pervin L A. Handbook of personality: Theory and research[C]. New York: Guilford Press, 2008: 492–517.
47 Rode J C, Arthaud-Day M L, Mooney C H, et al. Ability and personality predictors of salary, perceived job success, and perceived career success in the initial career stage[J]. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2008, 16(3): 292–299. DOI:10.1111/ijsa.2008.16.issue-3
48 Saucier G. Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers[J]. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1994, 63(3): 506–516. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa6303_8
49 Spurk D, Abele A E. Who earns more and why? A multiple mediation model from personality to salary[J]. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2011, 26(1): 87–103. DOI:10.1007/s10869-010-9184-3
50 Tasa K, Sears G J, Schat A C H. Personality and teamwork behavior in context: The cross‐level moderating role of collective efficacy[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2011, 32(1): 65–85. DOI:10.1002/job.680
51 Wiggins J S, Trapnell P D. A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model[A]. Wiggins J S. The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives[C]. New York: Guilford Press, 1996: 88–162.