IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/popmgt/v32y2023i1p98-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance feedback and productivity: Evidence from a field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Amrou Awaysheh
  • Rocio Bonet
  • Jaime Ortega

Abstract

We theorize that employees use the performance feedback they receive to reassess their beliefs about the marginal benefit of their effort, which may lead them to increase or reduce their effort. To test our model, we conduct a field experiment at the distribution center of a Fortune 500 firm where employees receive individual performance pay, and we study two types of feedback, individual and relative. The results show that employees react to feedback content in a way that is consistent with the model: They increase their effort if the information provided implies that the marginal benefit of increasing effort is high and decrease it if they learn that it is low. Moreover, performance feedback has a greater impact on the lower quantiles of the distribution of productivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Amrou Awaysheh & Rocio Bonet & Jaime Ortega, 2023. "Performance feedback and productivity: Evidence from a field experiment," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(1), pages 98-115, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:popmgt:v:32:y:2023:i:1:p:98-115
    DOI: 10.1111/poms.13827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13827
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/poms.13827?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azmat, Ghazala & Iriberri, Nagore, 2010. "The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(7-8), pages 435-452, August.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. John List & Sally Sadoff & Mathis Wagner, 2011. "So you want to run an experiment, now what? Some simple rules of thumb for optimal experimental design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 439-457, November.
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    5. Yan Chen & F. Maxwell Harper & Joseph Konstan & Sherry Xin Li, 2010. "Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1358-1398, September.
    6. Young, Alwyn, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Ivan A. Canay, 2011. "A simple approach to quantile regression for panel data," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 14(3), pages 368-386, October.
    8. Xavier Freixas & Roger Guesnerie & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Planning under Incomplete Information and the Ratchet Effect," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(2), pages 173-191.
    9. Alwyn Young, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 557-598.
    10. Eric Floyd & John A. List, 2016. "Using Field Experiments in Accounting and Finance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 437-475, May.
    11. Eyring, Henry & Narayanan, V.G., 2018. "Performance effects of setting a high reference point for peer-performance comparison," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86732, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Mareike Nossol, 2011. "Tournaments Without Prizes: Evidence from Personnel Records," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1721-1736, October.
    13. Susan Athey, 2002. "Monotone Comparative Statics under Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(1), pages 187-223.
    14. Jonathan T. Kolstad, 2013. "Information and Quality When Motivation Is Intrinsic: Evidence from Surgeon Report Cards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(7), pages 2875-2910, December.
    15. Jonathan T. Kolstad, 2013. "Information and Quality when Motivation is Intrinsic: Evidence from Surgeon Report Cards," NBER Working Papers 18804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2003. "Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(2-3), pages 287-318.
    17. Leone, Andrew J. & Rock, Steve, 2002. "Empirical tests of budget ratcheting and its effect on managers' discretionary accrual choices," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 43-67, February.
    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. Pablo Casas-Arce & Carolyn Deller & F. Asís Martínez-Jerez & José Manuel Narciso, 2023. "Knowing that you know: incentive effects of relative performance disclosure," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 91-125, March.
    2. Eyring, Henry & Narayanan, V.G., 2018. "Performance effects of setting a high reference point for peer-performance comparison," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86732, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    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. Henry Eyring & V. G. Narayanan, 2018. "Performance Effects of Setting a High Reference Point for Peer‐Performance Comparison," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 581-615, May.
    5. Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Krieger, Miriam, 2014. "How do Non-Monetary Performance Incentives for Physicians Affect the Quality of Medical Care? A Laboratory Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100583, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Nadja Kairies & Miriam Krieger, 2013. "How do Non-Monetary Performance Incentives for Physicians Affect the Quality of Medical Care? – A Laboratory Experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 0414, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    7. repec:zbw:rwirep:0414 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Kairies, Nadja & Krieger, Miriam, 2013. "How do Non-Monetary Performance Incentives for Physicians Affect the Quality of Medical Care? – A Laboratory Experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 414, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    9. Julie Beugnot & Bernard Fortin & Guy Lacroix & Marie Claire Villeval, 2013. "Social Networks and Peer Effects at Work," Cahiers de recherche 1320, CIRPEE.
    10. Neckermann, Susanne & Yang, Xiaolan, 2017. "Understanding the (unexpected) consequences of unexpected recognition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 131-142.
    11. Bahety, Girija & Bauhoff, Sebastian & Patel, Dev & Potter, James, 2021. "Texts don’t nudge: An adaptive trial to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Susanne Neckermann & Sally Sadoff, 2016. "The Behavioralist Goes to School: Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Improve Educational Performance," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 183-219, November.
    13. Aleksandr Alekseev, 2022. "Give me a challenge or give me a raise," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 170-202, February.
    14. Ana Beatriz Galvão & James Mitchell, 2024. "Communicating Data Uncertainty: Multiwave Experimental Evidence for UK GDP," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 56(1), pages 81-114, February.
    15. Christiane Bradler & Robert Dur & Susanne Neckermann & Arjan Non, 2013. "Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-038/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Theodor Vladasel & Simon C. Parker & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2024. "Revenue drift, incentives, and effort allocation in social enterprises," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 630-651, August.
    17. Czibor, Eszter & Onderstal, Sander & Sloof, Randolph & van Praag, C. Mirjam, 2020. "Does relative grading help male students? Evidence from a field experiment in the classroom," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    18. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Souverijn, Michiel, 2017. "Team Incentives, Task Assignment, and Performance: A Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 11228, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Buurman, Margaretha & Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Zoutenbier, Robin, 2020. "When do teachers respond to student feedback? Evidence from a field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    20. Guillaume Roels & Xuanming Su, 2014. "Optimal Design of Social Comparison Effects: Setting Reference Groups and Reference Points," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 606-627, March.
    21. Ritwik Banerjee & Priyama Majumdar, 2023. "Exponential growth bias in the prediction of COVID‐19 spread and economic expectation," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(358), pages 653-689, April.

    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:bla:popmgt:v:32:y:2023:i:1:p:98-115. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1937-5956 .

    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.