IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/wpaper/21.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Performance Pay and Enterprise Productivity: The Details Matter

Author

Listed:
  • Kato, Takao
  • Kauhanen, Antti

Abstract

Much of the empirical literature on PRP (Performance Related Pay) focuses on a question of whether the firm can increase firm performance in general and enterprise productivity in particular by introducing PRP and if so, how much. However, not all PRP programs are created equal and PRP programs vary significantly in a variety of attributes. This paper provides novel and rigorous evidence on the productivity effect of varying attributes of PRP and shows that the details of PRP indeed matter. In so doing we exploit the panel nature of our Finnish Linked Employer-Employee Data on the details of PRP. We first establish that the omitted variable bias is serious, makes the cross-sectional estimates on the productivity effect of the details of PRP biased upward substantially. Relying on the fixed effect estimates that account for such bias, we find: (i) group incentive PRP is more potent in boosting enterprise productivity than individual incentive PRP; (ii) group incentive PRP with profitability as a performance measure is especially powerful in raising firm productivity; (iii) when a narrow measure (such as cost reduction) is already used, adding another narrow measure (such as quality improvement) yields no additional productivity gain; and (iv) PRP with greater Power of Incentive (the share of PRP in total compensation) results in greater productivity gains yet returns to Power of Incentive diminishes very slowly.

Suggested Citation

  • Kato, Takao & Kauhanen, Antti, 2013. "Performance Pay and Enterprise Productivity: The Details Matter," ETLA Working Papers 21, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  • Handle: RePEc:rif:wpaper:21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/ETLA-Working-Papers-21.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kauhanen, Antti & Napari, Sami, 2011. "Career and Wage Dynamics: Evidence from Linked Employer-Employee Data," Discussion Papers 1244, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    2. Thomas Lemieux & W. Bentley MacLeod & Daniel Parent, 2009. "Performance Pay and Wage Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-49.
    3. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
    4. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk, 2011. "Performance Pay and Multidimensional Sorting: Productivity, Preferences, and Gender," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 556-590, April.
    5. Alex Bryson & Richard Freeman & Claudio Lucifora & Michele Pellizzari & Virginie Perotin, 2012. "Paying for Performance: Incentive Pay Schemes and Employees' Financial Participation," CEP Discussion Papers dp1112, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    6. 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.
    7. Bryson, Alex & Freeman, Richard, 2008. "How does shared capitalism affect economic performance in the UK?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 51596, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Joseph Blasi & Michael Conte & Douglas Kruse, 1996. "Employee Stock Ownership and Corporate Performance among Public Companies," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 50(1), pages 60-79, October.
    9. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Performance Pay and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1346-1361, December.
    10. Martin Conyon & Richard B. Freeman, 2004. "Shared Modes of Compensation and Firm Performance U.K. Evidence," NBER Chapters,in: Seeking a Premier Economy: The Economic Effects of British Economic Reforms, 1980-2000, pages 109-146 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. 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.
    12. Derek C. Jones & Takao Kato, 2011. "The Impact of Teams on Output, Quality, and Downtime: An Empirical Analysis Using Individual Panel Data," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 64(2), pages 215-240, January.
    13. Barton H. Hamilton & Jack A. Nickerson & Hideo Owan, 2003. "Team Incentives and Worker Heterogeneity: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Teams on Productivity and Participation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(3), pages 465-497, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Anne Gielen & Marcel Kerkhofs & Jan Ours, 2010. "How performance related pay affects productivity and employment," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 291-301, January.
    16. Derek C. Jones & Takao Kato & Jeffrey Pliskin, 1994. "Profit Sharing and Gainsharing: A Review of Theory, Incidence, and Effects," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_125, Levy Economics Institute.
    17. Douglas L. Kruse, 1993. "Profit Sharing: Does It Make a Difference?," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number ps, November.
    18. 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.
    19. James Levinsohn & Amil Petrin, 2003. "Estimating Production Functions Using Inputs to Control for Unobservables," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 70(2), pages 317-341.
    20. Derek C. Jones & Panu Kalmi & Antti Kauhanen, 2010. "Teams, Incentive Pay, and Productive Efficiency: Evidence from a Food-Processing Plant," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 63(4), pages 606-626, July.
    21. Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2009. "On estimating firm-level production functions using proxy variables to control for unobservables," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 112-114, September.
    22. Derek C. Jones & Takao Kato, 1993. "Employee Stock Ownership Plans and Productivity in Japanese Manufacturing Firms," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 331-346, September.
    23. James C. Sesil & Maya K. Kroumova & Joseph R. Blasi & Douglas L. Kruse, 2002. "Broad-based Employee Stock Options in US 'New Economy' Firms," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 40(2), pages 273-294, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J53 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - Labor-Management Relations; Industrial Jurisprudence
    • O53 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economywide Country Studies - - - Asia including Middle East

    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:21. 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.