IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_9940.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Which Peer Group to Choose? The Effects of Relative Performance Information on Employee Self-Selection and Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Petra Nieken
  • Anna Ressi

Abstract

This paper reports results of two controlled experiments on the behavioural effects of relative performance information (RPI) in different organizational structures. Our baseline study 1 focuses on a centralized organizational structure where employees are exogenously assigned to either a high-performing or a low-performing peer group. We find that RPI boosts performances when employees are assigned to the low-performing group. In contrast, when assigned to the high-performing group, our results point to a discouragement effect of RPI that can be attributed to low-performers. In study 2, we show that this or similarly undesired effects do not play a crucial role under a decentralized organizational structure where employees can self-select. In fact, we demonstrate that RPI especially induces employees with a relatively low performance to voluntarily choose the high-performing group. Analyzing subsequent performances suggests that providing self-selection options allows employees to use the high-performing group as a self-set target to spur motivation.

Suggested Citation

  • Petra Nieken & Anna Ressi, 2022. "Which Peer Group to Choose? The Effects of Relative Performance Information on Employee Self-Selection and Performance," CESifo Working Paper Series 9940, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_9940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp9940.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank Hartmann & Philipp Schreck, 2018. "Rankings, Performance, and Sabotage: The Moderating Effects of Target Setting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(2), pages 363-382, March.
    2. Lorenz Goette & David Huffman & Stephan Meier, 2006. "The Impact of Group Membership on Cooperation and Norm Enforcement: Evidence Using Random Assignment to Real Social Groups," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 212-216, May.
    3. Alfonso Gambardella & Pooyan Khashabi & Claudio Panico, 2020. "Managing Autonomy in Industrial Research and Development: A Project-Level Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 165-181, January.
    4. Simone Schneider & Jürgen Schupp, 2011. "The Social Comparison Scale: Testing the Validity, Reliability, and Applicability of the Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM) on the German Population," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 360, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    5. Harsh Ketkar & Maciej Workiewicz, 2022. "Power to the people: The benefits and limits of employee self‐selection in organizations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 935-963, May.
    6. Thomas, Tyler F., 2016. "Motivating revisions of management accounting systems: An examination of organizational goals and accounting feedback," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-16.
    7. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2012. "A Structural Analysis of Disappointment Aversion in a Real Effort Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 469-503, February.
    8. Camelia M. Kuhnen & Agnieszka Tymula, 2012. "Feedback, Self-Esteem, and Performance in Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 94-113, January.
    9. Schreck, Philipp, 2015. "Honesty in managerial reporting: How competition affects the benefits and costs of lying," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 177-188.
    10. Kelly, Khim & Presslee, Adam, 2017. "Tournament group identity and performance: The moderating effect of winner proportion," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 21-34.
    11. R. Lynn Hannan & Gregory P. McPhee & Andrew H. Newman & Ivo D. Tafkov & Steven J. Kachelmeier, 2019. "The Informativeness of Relative Performance Information and its Effect on Effort Allocation in a Multitask Environment," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1607-1633, September.
    12. Saerom (Ronnie) Lee, 2022. "The myth of the flat start‐up: Reconsidering the organizational structure of start‐ups," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 58-92, January.
    13. Supreet Kaur & Michael Kremer & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2010. "Self-Control and the Development of Work Arrangements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(2), pages 624-628, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philipp Schreck, 2020. "Volume or value? How relative performance information affects task strategy and performance," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(5), pages 733-755, June.
    2. Simon Piest & Philipp Schreck, 2021. "Contests and unethical behavior in organizations: a review and synthesis of the empirical literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 679-721, October.
    3. Lisa-Marie Wibbeke & Maik Lachmann, 2020. "Psychology in management accounting and control research: an overview of the recent literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 275-328, September.
    4. Gwen-Jiro Clochard & Guillaume Hollard & Julia Wirtz, 2022. "More effort or better technologies? On the effect of relative performance feedback," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 22/767, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    5. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    6. Banerjee, Ritwik & Gupta, Nabanita Datta & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2020. "Feedback spillovers across tasks, self-confidence and competitiveness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 127-170.
    7. Graff, Frederik & Grund, Christian & Harbring, Christine, 2021. "Competing on the Holodeck - The effect of virtual peers and heterogeneity in dynamic tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. Tim Straub & Henner Gimpel & Florian Teschner & Christof Weinhardt, 2015. "How (not) to Incent Crowd Workers," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(3), pages 167-179, June.
    9. Nives Della Valle & Matteo Ploner, 2017. "Reacting to Unfairness: Group Identity and Dishonest Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Gerhards, Leonie & Gravert, Christina, 2016. "Because of you I did not give up - How peers affect perseverance," Working Papers in Economics 659, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    11. Tor Eriksson & Lei Mao & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Saving face and group identity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 622-647, September.
    12. Dong, Lu & Huang, Lingbo, 2019. "Is there no ‘I’ in team? Strategic effects in multi-battle team competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PB).
    13. Gerhards, Leonie & Gravert, Christina, 2020. "Because of you I did not give up – Peer effects in perseverance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    14. David Gill & Zdenka Kissová & Jaesun Lee & Victoria Prowse, 2019. "First-Place Loving and Last-Place Loathing: How Rank in the Distribution of Performance Affects Effort Provision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 494-507, February.
    15. Beugnot, Julie & Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Gender and peer effects on performance in social networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 207-224.
    16. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    17. Heywood, John S. & Jirjahn, Uwe & Struewing, Cornelia, 2017. "Locus of control and performance appraisal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 205-225.
    18. Eisenkopf, Gerald & Friehe, Tim, 2014. "Stop watching and start listening! The impact of coaching and peer observation in tournaments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 56-70.
    19. Beugnot, Julie & Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Gender and Peer Effects in Social Networks," IZA Discussion Papers 10588, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Necker, Sarah & Paetzel, Fabian, 2023. "The effect of losing and winning on cheating and effort in repeated competitions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    peer groups; self-selection; reference points; relative performance information;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_9940. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.