What Makes Performance-Related Pay Schemes Work? Finnish Evidence
AbstractWe analyze how features of performance-related pay (PRP) schemes affect their perceived motivational effects using a Finnish survey for upper white-collar employees from 1999. The results show that the following features are important for a successful PRP scheme: (i) the employees have to feel they are able to affect the outcomes; (ii) the organizational level of the performance measurement should be close to the employee: individual and team level performance measurement increase the probability that the scheme is perceived to be motivating; (iii) employees should be familiar with the performance measures; (iv) the level of payments should be high enough and rewards frequent enough. Levels below the median do not generate positive effects; (v) employees should participate in the design of the PRP scheme. Copyright Springer 2006
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Management & Governance.
Volume (Year): 10 (2006)
Issue (Month): 2 (05)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102940
design of incentive schemes; effort provision; employee involvement; motivation; performance-related pay;
Other versions of this item:
- Kauhanen, Antti & Piekkola, Hannu, 2004. "What Makes Performance-related Pay Schemes Work? Finnish Evidence," Discussion Papers 929, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Murphy, Kevin J., 1999. "Executive compensation," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 38, pages 2485-2563 Elsevier.
- Kandel, E. & Lazear, E.P., 1990.
"Peer Pressure and Partnerships,"
90-07, Rochester, Business - Managerial Economics Research Center.
- Wadhwani, Sushil & Wall, Martin, 1990.
"The Effects of Profit-Sharing on Employment, Wages, Stock Returns and Productivity: Evidence from UK Micro-data,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(399), pages 1-17, March.
- Wadhwani, S. & Wall, M., 1988. "The Effects Of Profit-Sharing On Employment, Wages, Stock Returns And Productivity: Evidence From Uk Micro-Data," Papers 311, London School of Economics - Centre for Labour Economics.
- Rivers, Douglas & Vuong, Quang H., 1988. "Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 347-366, November.
- Kruse, Douglas L, 1992. "Profit Sharing and Productivity: Microeconomic Evidence from the United States," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 24-36, January.
- Chris Doucouliagos, 1995. "Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 49(1), pages 58-77, October.
- Stephen French & Katsuyuki Kubo & David Marsden, 2001. "Does Performance Pay De-Motivate, and Does It Matter?," CEP Discussion Papers dp0503, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Liang, Wen-Jung & Tseng, Ching-Chih & Wang, Kuang-Cheng Andy, 2011. "Location choice with delegation: Bertrand vs. Cournot competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 1774-1781, July.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.