IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tur/wpapnw/008.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentive Design and Manager Performances: an ABM Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Concetta Sorropago

    (University of Roma "Tor vergata", Italy)

Abstract

We present a simplified model to provide a virtual laboratory to test the effects of the use of different performance evaluation measures to design manager's incentives in a project-based professional service organization. Our company's owner has to cope with the scheduling of multiple resource constraint projects in real time (RCMPSP), and with the design of the production manager incentive, whose variable wage is tied to some measures of the performance, which are proxies of the original owner's goal. We propose an agent based model approach where the agents' intelligence lies in the choice of the scheduling sequences. A discrete event simulator (DES) executes the projects, allocating in real time, the limited resources available. A Genetic Algorithm, evolving the sequence, randomly generated, uses the DES to simulate the effect and ranks the solutions. In this way, we investigate the incentive alignment problem as a resource allocation problem, comparing the results deriving from their respective "good solutions".

Suggested Citation

  • Concetta Sorropago, 2012. "Incentive Design and Manager Performances: an ABM Approach," Working papers 008, Department of Economics, Social Studies, Applied Mathematics and Statistics (Dipartimento di Scienze Economico-Sociali e Matematico-Statistiche), University of Torino.
    • Handle: RePEc:tur:wpapnw:008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bemservizi.unito.it/repec/tur/wpapnw/m8.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2012
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Baker, 2000. "The Use of Performance Measures in Incentive Contracting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 415-420, May.
    2. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
    3. Duffy, John, 2006. "Agent-Based Models and Human Subject Experiments," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 949-1011, Elsevier.
    4. Chang, Myong-Hun & Harrington, Joseph Jr., 2006. "Agent-Based Models of Organizations," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 26, pages 1273-1337, Elsevier.
    5. Richard M. Burton, 2003. "Computational Laboratories for Organization Science: Questions, Validity and Docking," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 91-108, July.
    6. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    7. Andreas Pyka & Claudia Werker, 2009. "The Methodology of Simulation Models: Chances and Risks," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(4), pages 1-1.
    8. Macho-Stadler, Ines & Perez-Castrillo, J. David, 2001. "An Introduction to the Economics of Information: Incentives and Contracts," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199243259, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:tur:wpapnw:8 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Schnedler, Wendelin, 2003. "On the Prudence of Rewarding A While Hoping For B," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 7/2003, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    3. Thiele, Veikko, 2007. "Performance measurement in multi-task agencies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 148-163, September.
    4. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Discussion Paper 2003-130, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    5. Thiele, Veikko, 2007. "Task-Specific Abilities in Multi-Task Agency Relations," MPRA Paper 2470, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Andrew McEachin & Allison Atteberry, 2017. "The Impact of Summer Learning Loss on Measures of School Performance," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 12(4), pages 468-491, Fall.
    7. Kroos, P., 2009. "The incentive effects of performance measures and target setting," Other publications TiSEM 944001f9-198b-4b81-8824-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Jillian Chown, 2020. "Financial Incentives and Professionals’ Work Tasks: The Moderating Effects of Jurisdictional Dominance and Prominence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 887-908, July.
    9. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Other publications TiSEM 46a62de7-d051-4620-93bb-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Guliang Tang, 2018. "Differential Weighting of Objective Versus Subjective Measures in Performance Evaluation: Experimental Evidence," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 129-148, January.
    11. McCausland, David & Pouliakas, Konstantinos & Theodossiou, Ioannis, 2005. "Some are Punished and Some are Rewarded: A Study of the Impact of Performance Pay on Job Satisfaction," MPRA Paper 14243, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Lucio Biggiero & Enrico Sevi, 2009. "Opportunism by cheating and its effects on industry profitability. The CIOPS model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 191-236, September.
    13. Laura Arranz-Aperte & Almas Heshmati, 2004. "Determinants of Profit Sharing in the Finnish Corporate Sector," Indian Economic Review, Department of Economics, Delhi School of Economics, vol. 39(1), pages 55-79, January.
    14. Pierre Koning & J. Vyrastekova & S. Onderstal, 2006. "Team incentives in public organisations; an experimental study," CPB Discussion Paper 60, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Bevia Carmen & Corchón Luis C, 2006. "Rational Sabotage in Cooperative Production with Heterogeneous Agents," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-29, November.
    16. Kragl, Jenny & Schöttner, Anja, 2011. "Wage Floors and Optimal Job Design," VfS Annual Conference 2011 (Frankfurt, Main): The Order of the World Economy - Lessons from the Crisis 48731, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Guido Friebel & Matthias Heinz & Miriam Krueger & Nikolay Zubanov, 2017. "Team Incentives and Performance: Evidence from a Retail Chain," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2168-2203, August.
    18. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "The pros and cons of workplace tournaments," IZA World of Labor, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), pages 302-302, October.
    19. Bingley, P. & Eriksson, T, 2001. "Pay Spread and Skewness. Employee Effort and Firm Productivity," Papers 01-2, Aarhus School of Business - Department of Economics.
    20. Pablo Arocena & Mikel Villanueva, 2003. "Access as a Motivational Device: Implications for Human Resource Management," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 199-221, May.
    21. Marsden, David, 2003. "Renegotiating performance: the role of performance pay in renegotiating the effort bargain," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3634, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Complex System Dynamics; Resource constrained multi project scheduling; Incentive Design; Performance Evaluation Measures; Genetic Algorithm;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • L2 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation

    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:tur:wpapnw:008. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Daniele Pennesi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dstorit.html .

    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.