IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxford/v30y2014i4p639-657..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What field experiments have and have not taught us about managing workers

Author

Listed:
  • Steven D. Levitt
  • Susanne Neckermann

Abstract

This paper reviews the field experimental evidence on firm–employee relationships. There is strong evidence that output rises in response to financial incentives, but more mixed support for worker reciprocity in response to employer generosity. Non-financial approaches, such as worker recognition or adding ‘meaning’ to mundane tasks, can also increase output. Social relations are central to how firms function and have been shown to have an important impact on the design of incentive schemes. What we do not know, however, far exceeds that which we have learned. A broad swathe of important topics, including recruiting, worker promotion, and training, are virtually untouched thus far by field experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven D. Levitt & Susanne Neckermann, 2014. "What field experiments have and have not taught us about managing workers," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 30(4), pages 639-657.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:30:y:2014:i:4:p:639-657.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/grv003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur & Oke Onemu & Joeri Sol, 2022. "Team Incentives, Social Cohesion, and Performance: A Natural Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 230-256, January.
    2. Florian Englmaier & Stefan Grimm & Dominik Grothe & David Schindler & Simeon Schudy, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks," CESifo Working Paper Series 6903, CESifo.
    3. Gosnell, Greer & Metcalfe, Robert & List, John A, 2016. "A new approach to an age-old problem: solving externalities by incenting workers directly," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84331, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2019. "How natural field experiments have enhanced our understanding of unemployment," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 33-39, January.
    5. Manthei, Kathrin & Sliwka, Dirk, 2018. "Multitasking and Subjective Performance Evaluations: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment in a Bank," IZA Discussion Papers 11581, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks – Evidence from a Field Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168286, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. Ho F. Chan & Franklin G. Mixon & Benno Torgler, 2018. "Relation of early career performance and recognition to the probability of winning the Nobel Prize in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1069-1086, March.
    8. Franklin G. Mixon & Benno Torgler & Kamal P. Upadhyaya, 2022. "Committees or Markets? An Exploratory Analysis of Best Paper Awards in Economics," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Franklin G. Mixon & Benno Torgler & Kamal P. Upadhyaya, 2017. "Scholarly impact and the timing of major awards in economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1837-1852, September.
    10. Vanessa Mertins & Christian Walter, 2021. "In absence of money: a field experiment on volunteer work motivation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 952-984, September.
    11. Kathrin Manthei & Dirk Sliwka, 2019. "Multitasking and Subjective Performance Evaluations: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment in a Bank," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5861-5883, December.
    12. Harris, Qun & Mercieca, Analise & Soane, Emma & Tanaka, Misa, 2018. "How do bonus cap and malus affect risk and effort choice Insight from a lab experiment," Bank of England working papers 736, Bank of England.
    13. Ho Fai Chan & Franklin G. Mixon & Jayanta Sarkar & Benno Torgler, 2022. "Recognition and longevity: an examination of award timing and lifespan in Nobel laureates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3629-3659, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:30:y:2014:i:4:p:639-657.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.