IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v63y2011i3p499-522.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneous social preferences, screening, and employment contracts

Author

Listed:
  • Ferdinand A. von Siemens

Abstract

This paper studies a monopsonistic firm's optimal employment contracts if workers have private information on both their propensity for social comparisons and their ability. Employees of the firm are taken to form their own distinct reference group. It is shown that screening workers with equal ability according to their social preferences is then not possible within the firm. In consequence, the firm distorts production by its employees with low ability, or it excludes workers with low ability and a high propensity for social comparisons. This highlights that firms can use both contractual and organizational measures to reduce the costs arising from workers' social preferences. Further, information on workers' social preferences reduces the latter's impact on employment contracts without changing it qualitatively. Copyright 2011 Oxford University Press 2010 All rights reserved, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferdinand A. von Siemens, 2011. "Heterogeneous social preferences, screening, and employment contracts," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 499-522, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:63:y:2011:i:3:p:499-522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oep/gpq028
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giebe, Thomas & Gürtler, Oliver, 2012. "Optimal contracts for lenient supervisors," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 403-420.
    2. Bierbrauer, Felix & Netzer, Nick, 2016. "Mechanism design and intentions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 557-603.
    3. Jan Tichem, 2013. "Leniency Bias in Long-Term Workplace Relationships," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-196/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Gill, David & Stone, Rebecca, 2015. "Desert and inequity aversion in teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 42-54.
    5. Barigozzi, Francesca & Manna, Ester, 2020. "Envy in mission-oriented organisations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 395-424.
    6. Gürtler, Marc & Gürtler, Oliver, 2014. "The interaction of explicit and implicit contracts: A signaling approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 135-146.
    7. Dominik Erharter, 2013. "Screening Experts' Distributional Preferences," Working Papers 2013-27, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    8. Dominik Erharter, 2012. "Credence goods markets, distributional preferences and the role of institutions," Working Papers 2012-11, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    9. Sophie Cêtre & Max Lobeck, 2023. "Principal’s distributive preferences and the incentivization of agents," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 646-672, July.
    10. Robert Dur & Jan Tichem, 2012. "Social Relations and Relational Incentives," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-054/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Botond Köszegi, 2014. "Behavioral Contract Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(4), pages 1075-1118, December.
    12. Choi, Kangsik, 2016. "A Note On Envy And Earnings Inequality Under Limited Liability Contracts," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 57(1), pages 91-109, June.
    13. Maria Micevski, 2013. "Reciprocity, Matching, and Wage Competition," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2013-25, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    14. Manna, Ester, 2016. "Envy in the workplace," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 18-21.
    15. Daniel G. Arce, 2017. "Screening for Managerial Objectives," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(2), pages 442-455, October.
    16. Arce, Daniel G., 2013. "Principals’ preferences for agents with social preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 154-163.
    17. Roberto Sarkisian, 2021. "Screening Teams of Moral and Altruistic Agents," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.

    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:oup:oxecpp:v:63:y:2011:i:3:p:499-522. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    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.