IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/wpaper/20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Empirical Evidence on the Dynamics of Incentive Plans

Author

Listed:
  • Kato, Takao
  • Kauhanen, Antti
  • Salmi, Julia

Abstract

Using three different waves of a survey on compensation practices from 2005, 2007, and 2010, we study the dynamics of incentive plans. We describe that firms frequently discontinue incentive plans and often change performance measures and organizational levels of performance measurement. The results show that incentive plans are dynamic in nature, but that the dynamics are difficult to explain. The power of the leading theoretical explanations for these changes, i.e., turbulence in the operating environment and learning about performance measures, is not strong.

Suggested Citation

  • Kato, Takao & Kauhanen, Antti & Salmi, Julia, 2013. "Empirical Evidence on the Dynamics of Incentive Plans," ETLA Working Papers 20, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  • Handle: RePEc:rif:wpaper:20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/ETLA-Working-Papers-20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paarsch, Harry J & Shearer, Bruce, 2000. "Piece Rates, Fixed Wages, and Incentive Effects: Statistical Evidence from Payroll Records," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 41(1), pages 59-92, February.
    2. Antti Kauhanen & Sami Napari, 2012. "Career and Wage Dynamics: Evidence from Linked Employer-Employee Data," Research in Labor Economics,in: Research in Labor Economics, volume 36, pages 35-76 Emerald Publishing Ltd.
    3. Jones, Derek C & Kato, Takao, 1995. "The Productivity Effects of Employee Stock-Ownership Plans and Bonuses: Evidence from Japanese Panel Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 391-414, June.
    4. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2005. "Social Preferences and the Response to Incentives: Evidence from Personnel Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(3), pages 917-962.
    5. Gibbs, Michael, 2012. "Design and Implementation of Pay for Performance," IZA Discussion Papers 6322, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    6. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1995. "Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 179-208, April.
    7. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2007. "Incentives for Managers and Inequality among Workers: Evidence from a Firm-Level Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 122(2), pages 729-773.
    8. Antti Kauhanen & Sami Napari, 2012. "Performance Measurement and Incentive Plans," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 645-669, July.
    9. Carolyn J. Heinrich & Gerald Marschke, 2010. "Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 183-208.
    10. Antti Kauhanen, 2011. "The Perils of Altering Incentive Plans: A Case Study," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 371-384, September.
    11. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    12. Harry J. Paarsch & Bruce S. Shearer, 1999. "The Response of Worker Effort to Piece Rates: Evidence from the British Columbia Tree-Planting Industry," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(4), pages 643-667.
    13. Douglas L. Kruse, 1996. "Why Do Firms Adopt Profit-Sharing and Employee Ownership Plans?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 34(4), pages 515-538, December.
    14. Bhargava, Sandeep, 1994. "Profit-Sharing and the Financial Performance of Companies: Evidence from U.K. Panel Data," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(426), pages 1044-1056, September.
    15. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Performance Pay and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1346-1361, December.
    16. Bruce Shearer, 2004. "Piece Rates, Fixed Wages and Incentives: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 71(2), pages 513-534.
    17. Michael Raith, 2008. "Specific knowledge and performance measurement," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(4), pages 1059-1079.
    18. George Baker, 2002. "Distortion and Risk in Optimal Incentive Contracts," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 728-751.
    19. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1994. "Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 1125-1156.
    20. Bengt Holmstrom, 1979. "Moral Hazard and Observability," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 74-91, Spring.
    21. Jean-Francois Henri, 2010. "The Periodic Review of Performance Indicators: An Empirical Investigation of the Dynamism of Performance Measurement Systems," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 73-96.
    22. Pascal Courty & Gerald Marschke, 2003. "Dynamics of Performance-Measurement Systems," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 268-284, Summer.
    23. Baker, George P, 1992. "Incentive Contracts and Performance Measurement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(3), pages 598-614, June.
    24. Hyytinen, Ari & Maliranta, Mika, 2013. "Firm lifecycles and evolution of industry productivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1080-1098.
    25. Gibbs, Michael & Merchant, Kenneth A. & Van der Stede, Wim A. & Vargus, Mark A., 2004. "Performance Measure Properties and Incentives," IZA Discussion Papers 1356, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:rif:wpaper:20. 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: (Kaija Hyvönen-Rajecki). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/etlaafi.html .

    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.