Is Pay-For-Performance Detrimental to Innovation?
Previous research in economics shows that paying the agent based on performance induces the agent to exert more effort thereby enhancing productivity. On the other hand, research in psychology argues that performance-based financial incentives may inhibit creativity and innovation. In a controlled laboratory experiment, we provide evidence that the combination of tolerance for early failure and reward for long-term success is effective in motivating innovation. Subjects under such an incentive scheme explore more and are more likely to discover a novel business strategy than subjects under fixed-wage and standard pay-for-performance incentive schemes. We also find evidence that the threat of termination can undermine incentives for innovation, while golden parachutes can alleviate these innovation-reducing effects. Our results suggest that appropriately designed incentives are useful in motivating creativity and innovation.
|Date of creation:||04 Aug 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (510) 642-1922
Fax: (510) 642-5018
Web page: http://www.escholarship.org/repec/iber_econ/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- M. L. Weitzman, 1978.
"Optimal Search for the Best Alternative,"
214, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Nalbantian, Haig R & Schotter, Andrew, 1997.
"Productivity under Group Incentives: An Experimental Study,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 314-41, June.
- Nalbantian, Haig & Schotter, Andrew, 1994. "Productivity Under Group Incentives: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 94-04, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Merlo, Antonio & Schotter, Andrew, 1999.
"A Surprise-Quiz View of Learning in Economic Experiments,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 25-54, July.
- Merlo, A. & Schotter, A., 1995. "A Surprise-Quiz View of Learning in Economic Experiments," Working Papers 95-32, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Robert J. Meyer & Yong Shi, 1995. "Sequential Choice Under Ambiguity: Intuitive Solutions to the Armed-Bandit Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(5), pages 817-834, May.
- Bruce Shearer, 2004. "Piece Rates, Fixed Wages and Incentives: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 513-534, 04.
- Rogerson, William P, 1985. "Repeated Moral Hazard," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(1), pages 69-76, January.
- Sillamaa, M. A., 1999. "How work effort responds to wage taxation: An experimental test of a zero top marginal tax rate," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 125-134, July.
- Yuliy Sannikov, 2008. "A Continuous-Time Version of the Principal-Agent Problem," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(3), pages 957-984.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:econwp:qt03t787q9. 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: (Lisa Schiff)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.