IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v166y2019icp471-492.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Input, output or mixed monitoring in teams?

Author

Listed:
  • Bag, Parimal K.
  • Wang, Peng

Abstract

In team problems is it better for the principal to reward players based on their individual efforts or should they be rewarded based on collective performance or even a combination of the two? The answer will depend on the importance of two familiar challenges in team works – coordination and free riding. With perfectly complementary efforts, free-riding incentives are absent, so the principal prefers output monitoring over input monitoring but sometimes both may be dominated by mixed-wage incentives. When efforts are perfect substitutes in production, either of the two polar mechanisms may dominate the other but sometimes mixed-wages may dominate both. For more general technologies only output and input monitoring mechanisms are compared. It is shown that when the team production technology is supermodular, coordination becomes the primary concern and monitoring agents through collective output is mostly the better protocol. On the other hand, if the technology is submodular, output monitoring encourages free riding and so input monitoring may be a more attractive alternative.

Suggested Citation

  • Bag, Parimal K. & Wang, Peng, 2019. "Input, output or mixed monitoring in teams?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 471-492.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:166:y:2019:i:c:p:471-492
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.07.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268119302367
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Leslie M. Marx & Steven A. Matthews, 2000. "Dynamic Voluntary Contribution to a Public Project," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 327-358.
    2. Alwine Mohnen & Kathrin Pokorny & Dirk Sliwka, 2008. "Transparency, Inequity Aversion, and the Dynamics of Peer Pressure in Teams: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(4), pages 693-720, October.
    3. Itoh, Hideshi, 1991. "Incentives to Help in Multi-agent Situations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 611-636, May.
    4. McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John, 1991. "Optimal Contracts for Teams," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 32(3), pages 561-577, August.
    5. Patrick Legros & Steven A. Matthews, 1993. "Efficient and Nearly-Efficient Partnerships," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(3), pages 599-611.
    6. Herold, Florian, 2010. "Contractual incompleteness as a signal of trust," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 180-191, January.
    7. Khalil Fahad & Lawarree Jacques, 1995. "Input versus Output Monitoring: Who Is the Residual Claimant?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 139-157, June.
    8. Bergstrom, Theodore & Blume, Lawrence & Varian, Hal, 1986. "On the private provision of public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 25-49, February.
    9. Eyal Winter, 2006. "Optimal incentives for sequential production processes," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(2), pages 376-390, June.
    10. David Rahman, 2012. "But Who Will Monitor the Monitor?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2767-2797, October.
    11. Bushman, RM & Indjejikian, RJ & Smith, A, 1995. "Aggregate performance measures in business unit manager compensation: The role of intrafirm interdependencies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33, pages 101-128.
    12. Bengt Holmstrom, 1982. "Moral Hazard in Teams," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 324-340, Autumn.
    13. Parimal Kanti Bag & Nona Pepito, 2012. "Peer Transparency In Teams: Does It Help Or Hinder Incentives?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1257-1286, November.
    14. Nandeibam, Shasikanta, 2002. "Sharing Rules in Teams," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 407-420, December.
    15. Drago, Robert & Turnbull, Geoffrey K., 1988. "Individual versus group piece rates under team technologies," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, March.
    16. Sappington, David, 1983. "Limited liability contracts between principal and agent," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-21, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Team; Monitoring; Free riding; Coordination;

    JEL classification:

    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • D86 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Economics of Contract Law
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
    • J41 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Labor Contracts
    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects

    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:eee:jeborg:v:166:y:2019:i:c:p:471-492. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.