During the past 10 years, the field of human capital resources (HCR), often referred to as strategic human capital (SHC), has gained interest in both micro and macro disciplines. This increase in attention from a diverse set of researchers has shifted the focus of the field to topics such as identifying different types of HCR, HCR emergence, and links between collective HCR and higher level outcomes. The first decade of dedicated HCR research led to the growth of distinct research streams and forged its own robust and growing literature. However, after a decade of progress, the field is splintered. To unite the field and create a solid foundation for building future research, we provide a cohesive perspective of lessons learned in the first decade of dedicated HCR research, which has primarily focused on collective HCR. This review examines 194 articles, revealing several themes that have emerged, an integrated model that flows from the review, and rich opportunities for future research to both integrate and expand the growing HCR field for the next decade and beyond.

The field of strategic human resource management has established a clear positive relationship between human resource (HR) practices and organizational performance. However, much of the research in this field has focused on commitment-eliciting HR practices and has neglected control-oriented HR practices. In this article, we review the strategic human resource management literature since initial work on commitment and control HR practices, and demonstrate that the field has implicitly adopted a normative paradigm favoring commitment HR practices. In doing so, we explicate why the focus on commitment HR practices has hindered our understanding of the horizontal fit of HR practices. We suggest that this is problematic in light of recent research demonstrating that control HR practices independently affect performance and may interact with commitment HR practices to affect performance. Additionally, we provide guidance for future research that incorporates both commitment and control HR practices.

Research Summary Extant research rarely explores the relationship between executive compensation and chief executive officer (CEO) succession planning, despite practitioner claims that executive pay disparities indicate succession planning (in)effectiveness. Leveraging signaling theory, we use 830 succession events from 2010 to 2017 to show that pay disparity between the CEO and the highest paid non-CEO executive is positively related to the likelihood of outside CEO succession. Thus, boards need to be aware of the implications of possible unintentional signals sent via executive compensation decisions. We do not find evidence of an interactive effect when compensation and CEO succession are co-managed using linking pin directors-directors with compensation and CEO succession responsibilities-but supplemental analyses suggest a positive main effect of linking pin directors on the likelihood of inside CEO succession. Managerial Summary Powerful watchdog agencies assert that high pay differences between a firm's CEO and its next highest paid executive (CEO-HPE pay disparity) indicate succession planning challenges. This assertion has profound implications for stakeholders, but evidence supporting it is unclear. Our study examines the relationship between CEO-HPE pay disparity and the board's choice of an outside CEO, an indicator of ineffective succession planning. We find evidence that higher pay disparity signals an increased likelihood of choosing an outside CEO successor. We also find that boards who co-manage compensation and succession may be more likely to hire an inside CEO successor. Our findings suggest that boards need to understand how compensation decisions may be inadvertently signaling future CEO succession choices.

One certainty in all organizations’ life cycle is that their top leaders will come and go and thus, too, leaders will be replaced with new leaders. Recent estimates suggest that 10-20% of organizations experience a change at the top each year. The departure and replacement of organizations’ top leaders — that is, leader succession — has been described as the most important leadership transition for firms and as an organizational change that impacts numerous stakeholders. It is, thus, practically and theoretically important to understand how to effectively manage dynamics of leader-succession — for all stakeholders, internally and externally. For this reason, there is need for studies of CEO succession to utilize theoretical perspectives and empirical methods that enable them to see micro-level (e.g., employee-related) as well as macro-level (e.g., organizational- level) reactions to leader succession. Empirically, this means that the publicly archival data bases of companies that are often used to observe associations between CEO-succession and TMT- or board-changes and/or firm financial performance will ideally be supplemented with employee surveys and/or qualitative interviews with employees, including CEOs. Yet, studies on CEO succession dynamics that bridge micro- and macro-level theories and empirical approaches hardly exist. This symposium’s four papers collectively show the value of augmenting prior leader succession-research with a micro perspective/data on employee behaviors and attitudes, with qualitative as well as quantitative empirical approaches, and with a focus on both public and for-profit organizational contexts. This symposium thus broadens our sight into the role of internal dynamics associated with leader succession's antecedents and consequences. Does the Board Listen to Employees' CEO (Dis)approval When Deciding CEO Dismissal? Presenter: Danni Wang; Rutgers Business School Presenter: Qi Zhu; Department of Management &Marketing, Faculty of Business, Hong Kong Polytechnic Presenter: Bruce Avolio; U. of Washington Presenter: Wei Shen; Arizona State U. Presenter: David A. Waldman; Arizona State U. Top Management Teambuilding After CEO Succession Presenter: Anthony J. Nyberg; U. of South Carolina Presenter: Donald Joseph Schepker; U. of South Carolina Presenter: Spenser Essman; Darla Moore School of Business, U. of South Carolina When Changing the Leader Leads to Change Presenter: Katherine Klein; U. of Pennsylvania Presenter: David A. Harrison; U. of Texas at Austin Presenter: JR Keller; Cornell U. Presenter: Shoshana Schwartz; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Presenter: Jeffrey Vittengl; Truman State U. Presenter: N Andrew Cohen; George Washington U. The Departing Leader’s Legacy Presenter: Katherine Klein; U. of Pennsylvania Presenter: Daan Van Knippenberg; Drexel U. Presenter: JR Keller; Cornell U. Presenter: Debra L. Shapiro; U. of Maryland Presenter: Jeffrey Vittengl; Truman State U. Presenter: Jin Yao; Xi'an Jiaotong U. Presenter: N Andrew Cohen; George Washington U.

Both macro- and micro-oriented researchers frequently use panel data where the outcome of interest is measured repeated times. Panel data support at least five different modeling frameworks (within, between, incremental/emergent, cross-level, and growth). Researchers from macro- and micro-oriented domains tend to differentially use the frameworks and also use different analytic tools and terminology when using the same modeling framework. These differences have the potential to inhibit cross-discipline communication. In this review, we explore how macro- and microresearchers approach panel data with a specific emphasis on the theoretical implications of choosing one framework versus another. We illustrate how fixed-effects and random-effects models differ and how they are similar, and we conduct a thorough review of 142 articles that used panel data in leading management journals in 2017. Ultimately, our review identifies ways that researchers can better employ fixed- and random-effects models, model time as a meaningful predictor or ensure unobserved time heterogeneity is controlled, and align hypotheses to analytic choice. In the end, our goal is to help facilitate communication and theory development between macro- and micro-oriented management researchers.

The use of independent contractors has steadily increased over the past two decades. However, relatively little research has examined contractors' effectiveness and the studies that do often report contradictory findings of contractors' value. The inconsistent findings result from the broad definition of effectiveness employed in these studies, stretched across various types of

This symposium brings together scholars from Strategic Management and Human Resources with the intent of promoting interdisciplinary discussion about executive compensation that can advance future research. Scholars in both of these fields have contributed to our understanding of the importance of compensation for motivating and retaining firm executives. Executives are key drivers of strategic outcomes and compensation is critical to ensuring effective management. The papers in this symposium advance our understanding of executive compensation by considering new antecedents and outcomes associated with executive compensation. The symposium will include a discussion led by experts from the Strategic Management and Human Resources division. The Influence of Boards on Executive Compensation: A Grounded Theory Approach Presenter: Steven Boivie; Texas A&M U. Presenter: Kevin G. Corley; Arizona State U. Presenter: Scott Graffin; U. of Georgia The Hidden Dangers of CEO Pay: Exploring the Effects of CEO and Employee Compensation on Safety Presenter: Adam Steinbach; U. of South Carolina Presenter: Spenser Essman; Darla Moore School of Business, U. of South Carolina Compensation Peer Groups and CEO Mobility Presenter: Steffen Burkert; LMU Munich Presenter: Marco Tonellato; LMU Munich Presenter: Robert Kase; U. of Ljubljana Presenter: Ingo Weller; LMU Munich Signaling a Successor: Examining the Executive Compensation-CEO Succession Relationship Presenter: Spenser Essman; Darla Moore School of Business, U. of South Carolina Presenter: Donald Joseph Schepker; U. of South Carolina

We propose to revisit the ideas of vertical and horizontal fit in the SHRM literature with the goal of stepping back from the dominant HPWS paradigm and taking a fresh look at how we can best understand the ways in which HRM might support organizations in the quest for human capital-based competitive advantage. We draw on ideas from early SHRM scholarship, from more recent research in the area of strategic human capital, and from our observations of the changing competitive environments faced by today’s organizations. Carrots, Sticks and Performance: Is It Commitment, or Is It Commitment Plus Control? Presenter: Patrick Wright; U. of South Carolina Searching for Competitive Advantage in the HRM/Firm Performance Relationship Presenter: Clint Chadwick; U. of Kansas Time for Realignment: The HR Ecosystem Presenter: Scott A Snell; U. of Virginia

Rewarding collective outcomes has become an increasingly important strategic motivational tool for driving collective success, reflecting the insight that paying employees for individual contributions does not always optimize performance in collective endeavors. Research into different types of collective pay for performance (PFP), or pay that is contingent on collective outcomes, has been studied in diverse academic fields (e.g., economics, strategy, psychology), but the compartmentalization between these academic disciplines hinders conceptual coordination. To advance this research and its related insights, this article provides a review of the theory and evidence pertaining to the relationships between different collective PFP types and collective outcomes. We also provide a meta-analysis that shows that collective PFP has desirable outcomes (e.g., meta-analysis shows an overall ρ = 0.11; p < .001), substantiating the value of studying collective PFP separately from individual PFP. The review also reveals a lack of empirical and theoretical development and highlights the need for a comprehensive theory of collective PFP. Our cross-disciplinary review of 106 empirical articles builds a foundation for advancing common pursuits, integrating knowledge, and creating theory. The consolidated perspectives point to promising directions for future research.

Implementing compensation plans is a vital human resource practice that affects individuals, teams, and organizations. However, compensation research remains neglected in management research. Specifically, little is known about the effects of implementing new compensation plans or changing existing plans. Understanding the response to changes in compensation is especially important under dynamic economic conditions. The papers in this symposium analyze rich field data and contribute to theory by examining the implementation of, and changes to, compensation plans and the effects on individuals, teams, and organizations. Impact of Changing Skill-based Pay Certification Criteria on Skill Proficiency Presenter: Eric Alan Surface; ALPS Insights Presenter: James Kemp Ellington; Appalachian State U. Presenter: Samantha A. Conroy; Colorado State U. Presenter: Reanna Harman; ALPS Solutions Presenter: Don Drewes; North Carolina State U. Presenter: Lauren Brandt; ALPS Solutions Presenter: Elisabeth Dezern; ALPS Insights Identity Work in Resolving the Paradox of Compensation System Implementation Presenter: Aino Tenhiälä; IE Business School Presenter: Saku Mantere; McGill U. Individual and Firm Response to the Remuneration Transparency Act in Germany Presenter: Spenser Essman; Darla Moore School of Business, U. of South Carolina Presenter: Anthony J. Nyberg; U. of South Carolina Presenter: Ingo Weller; LMU Munich Presenter: Julia Ebert; Ludwig Maximilian U. of Munich (LMU) Presenter: Lena Göbel; Ludwig Maximilian U. of Munich (LMU) Are Team Rewards Better than Other Pay Plans? A Meta-Analytic Investigation Presenter: Pingshu Li; UTRGV Presenter: Keshab Acharya; the U. of texas rio grande valley Presenter: Eduardo Millet; U. of Texas Rio Grande Valley Presenter: James P Guthrie; U. of Kansas Workplace Consequences of Competitive vs. Egalitarian Strategic Compensation Plans Presenter: Mahmut Bayazit; Sabanci U. Presenter: Dennis George Ma; U. of British Columbia Presenter: Danielle Van Jaarsveld; U. of British Columbia

The concept of human capital resources (HCRs) is increasingly the predominant mechanism for explaining how organizations compete strategically through attracting, retaining, and developing talent. Despite the increased attention placed on the HCR construct, progress in HCR research has not advanced as rapidly as related scholarly fields. We posit that some of the lag in HCR research can be attributed to the continued focus on established debates. Rather than focusing on understanding how HCRs are developed and can be leveraged to achieve unit performance differentiation, HCR research often seems preoccupied with long-standing battles. In this manuscript, we provide a commentary on the current state of HCR literature, explain why we recommend reducing discussions along three specific HCR debates, and propose alternative HCR topics for researchers to pursue.