IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v33y2022i4p1273-1299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mitigating Gig and Remote Worker Misconduct: Evidence from a Real Effort Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa C. Burbano

    (Columbia Business School, New York, New York 10027)

  • Bennett Chiles

    (Columbia Business School, New York, New York 10027)

Abstract

Employee misconduct is costly to organizations and has the potential to be even more common in gig and remote work contexts, in which workers are physically distant from their employers. There is, thus, a need for scholars to better understand what employers can do to mitigate misconduct in these nontraditional work environments, particularly as the prevalence of such work environments is increasing. We combine an agency perspective with a behavioral relationship-based perspective to consider two avenues through which gig employers can potentially mitigate misconduct: (1) through the communication of organizational values and (2) through the credible threat of monitoring. We implement a real effort experiment in a gig work context that enables us to cleanly observe misconduct. Consistent with our theory, we present causal evidence that communication of organizational values, both externally facing in the form of social/environmental responsibility and internally facing in the form of an employee ethics code, decreases misconduct. This effect, however, is largely negated when workers are informed that they are being monitored. We provide suggestive evidence that this crowding out is due to a decrease in perceived trust that results from the threat of monitoring. Our results have important theoretical implications for research on employee misconduct and shed light on the trade-offs associated with various potential policy solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa C. Burbano & Bennett Chiles, 2022. "Mitigating Gig and Remote Worker Misconduct: Evidence from a Real Effort Experiment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(4), pages 1273-1299, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:4:p:1273-1299
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2021.1488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1488
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2021.1488?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
    ---><---

    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:inm:ororsc:v:33:y:2022:i:4:p:1273-1299. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.