IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v113y2024ics0361368224000254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When being recognized makes employees feel less appreciated: Evidence regarding when and why peer-to-peer recognition could backfire

Author

Listed:
  • Black, Paul W.
  • Cecchini, Mark S.
  • Newman, Andrew H.

Abstract

Research links intangible employee outcomes with ultimate firm performance and business press suggests peer recognition systems can positively influence such employee outcomes, including the degree to which employees feel appreciated. We collect survey data at a company both pre and post the rollout of their public peer recognition system. Contrary to company expectations, employees felt less appreciated by their peers after system implementation. We then develop and experimentally test theory to better explain why this decline likely occurred. We find that two features of public peer recognition systems, public feeds and leaderboards, induce different types of social comparisons, and each have incrementally negative effects on the average feelings of appreciation among employees, even though, in isolation, peer recognition positively influences employees’ feelings of appreciation. These results help explain the findings from our field surveys and highlight that firms should carefully consider how the features of their peer recognition systems affect employees, as some features may unintentionally harm employee outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Black, Paul W. & Cecchini, Mark S. & Newman, Andrew H., 2024. "When being recognized makes employees feel less appreciated: Evidence regarding when and why peer-to-peer recognition could backfire," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:113:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000254
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2024.101565
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368224000254
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101565?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.
    2. Libby, Robert & Bloomfield, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2002. "Experimental research in financial accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 775-810, November.
    3. Dan Ariely & Anat Bracha & Stephan Meier, 2009. "Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 544-555, March.
    4. Hoffman, VB & Patton, JM, 1997. "Accountability, the dilution effect, and conservatism in auditors' fraud judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 227-237.
    5. Black, Paul W., 2023. "The effect of peer-to-peer recognition systems on helping behavior: The influence of rewards and group affiliation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    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. Black, Paul W., 2023. "The effect of peer-to-peer recognition systems on helping behavior: The influence of rewards and group affiliation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    3. Takahashi, Hiromasa & Shen, Junyi & Ogawa, Kazuhito, 2016. "An experimental examination of compensation schemes and level of effort in differentiated tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 12-19.
    4. Dalla Via, Nicola & Perego, Paolo & van Rinsum, Marcel, 2019. "How accountability type influences information search processes and decision quality," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 79-91.
    5. Koonce, Lisa & Mongold, Cassie & Quaid, Laura & White, Brian J., 2024. "Experimental research on standard-setting issues in financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    6. Ondrej Rydval, 2012. "The Causal Effect of Cognitive Abilities on Economic Behavior: Evidence from a Forecasting Task with Varying Cognitive Load," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-064, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    7. Geoffrey Bartlett & Eric Johnson & Philip Reckers, 2014. "Accountability and Role Effects in Balanced Scorecard Performance Evaluations When Strategy Timeline Is Specified," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 143-165, May.
    8. Aisha J Ali & Javier Fuenzalida & Margarita Gómez & Martin J Williams, 2021. "Four lenses on people management in the public sector: an evidence review and synthesis," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(2), pages 335-366.
    9. Karola Bastini & Rainer Kasperzak, 2013. "Erkenntnisfortschritt in der Rechnungslegung durch experimentelle Forschung? — Diskussion methodischer Grundsatzfragen anhand der Entscheidungsnützlichkeit des Performance Reporting," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 65(7), pages 622-660, December.
    10. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    11. Sseruyange, J. & Bulte, E., 2018. "Do Incentives matter for Knowledge Diffusion? Experimental Evidence from Uganda," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275896, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2008. "Motivating Altruism: A Field Study," IZA Discussion Papers 3770, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Aseem Kaul & Jiao Luo, 2018. "An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for‐profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(6), pages 1650-1677, June.
    14. Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Don’t Tell Me What to Do, Tell Me Who to Follow! - Field Experiment Evidence on Voluntary Donations," Working Papers in Economics 452, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Jing Wang & Gen Li & Kai-Lung Hui, 2022. "Monetary Incentives and Knowledge Spillover: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3549-3572, May.
    16. Qiyan ONG & Yohanes Eko RIYANTO & Walter E. THESEIRA & Steven M. SHEFFRIN, 2013. "The Self-Image Signaling Roles of Voice in Decision-Making," Economic Growth Centre Working Paper Series 1303, Nanyang Technological University, School of Social Sciences, Economic Growth Centre.
    17. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    18. Jingze Jiang, 2016. "Peer Pressure in Voluntary Environmental Programs: a Case of the Bag Rewards Program," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 155-190, June.
    19. Luo, Bing, 2019. "Effects of auditor-provided tax services on book-tax differences and on investors' mispricing of book-tax differences," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    20. Johannesson Magnus & Östling Robert & Ranehill Eva, 2010. "The Effect of Competition on Physical Activity: A Randomized Trial," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-31, September.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:113:y:2024:i:c:s0361368224000254. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.