What Makes Performance-Related Pay Schemes Work? Finnish Evidence
We analyze how features of performance-related pay (PRP) schemes affect their perceived motivational effects using a Finnish survey for upper white-collar employees from 1999. The results show that the following features are important for a successful PRP scheme: (i) the employees have to feel they are able to affect the outcomes; (ii) the organizational level of the performance measurement should be close to the employee: individual and team level performance measurement increase the probability that the scheme is perceived to be motivating; (iii) employees should be familiar with the performance measures; (iv) the level of payments should be high enough and rewards frequent enough. Levels below the median do not generate positive effects; (v) employees should participate in the design of the PRP scheme. Copyright Springer 2006
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kruse, Douglas L, 1992. "Profit Sharing and Productivity: Microeconomic Evidence from the United States," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 24-36, January.
- Chris Doucouliagos, 1995.
"Worker participation and productivity in labor-managed and participatory capitalist firms: A meta-analysis,"
Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 49(1), pages 58-77, October.
- Chris Doucouliagos, 1995. "Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 49(1), pages 58-77, October.
- Kandel, Eugene & Lazear, Edward P, 1992.
"Peer Pressure and Partnerships,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(4), pages 801-17, August.
- Wadhwani, Sushil & Wall, Martin, 1990.
"The Effects of Profit-Sharing on Employment, Wages, Stock Returns and Productivity: Evidence from UK Micro-data,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(399), pages 1-17, March.
- Wadhwani, S. & Wall, M., 1988. "The Effects Of Profit-Sharing On Employment, Wages, Stock Returns And Productivity: Evidence From Uk Micro-Data," Papers 311, London School of Economics - Centre for Labour Economics.
- Rivers, Douglas & Vuong, Quang H., 1988. "Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 347-366, November.
- Stephen French & Katsuyuki Kubo & David Marsden, 2001. "Does Performance Pay De-Motivate, and Does It Matter?," CEP Discussion Papers dp0503, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
- Murphy, Kevin J., 1999. "Executive compensation," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 38, pages 2485-2563 Elsevier.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jmgtgv:v:10:y:2006:i:2:p:149-177. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.