Samenvatting
Problem 5 - Remuneration Summary 2.8 Performance At Work (FSWP2-080-A)
Problem 5 - Remuneration Summary 2.8 Performance At Work (FSWP2-080-A)
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 2 van de 12 pagina's
Voorbeeld 2 van de 12 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Problem 5 – RemunerationDouglas Jenkins 1998 - Are Financial Incentives Related to Performance?
A Meta-Analytic Review of Empirical Research
Type of study: Meta-analysis
Aim: to investigate the strength of the relationship between financial incentives and performance
Introduction
• Impact of financial incentives are complex (differences in utility of money, social comparisons
that financial incentives evoke, group norms, organizational structure)
• Debate whether financial incentives improve performance
• Proponents
o The most potent influence, on employee performance and other desired behaviors
• Opponents
o Financial incentives supplement intrinsic rewards: People need money
o Financial incentives control employee behavior externally, reducing self-determination
and intrinsic motivation
o Rewards encourage people to focus narrowly on a task, to do it as quickly as possible,
and to take few risks
Theories on incentives
• Expectancy theory → tying financial incentives to performance increases extrinsic motivation to
expend effort and consequently performance
• Reinforcement theory → tying money to performance will reinforce performance
• Goal-setting theory → financial incentives increase acceptance of difficult performance goals,
enhancing performance
• Cognitive evaluation theory → performance-contingent financial incentives erode intrinsic
motivation and thereby diminish task performance
• Equity theory → people are motivated to reduce inequity, but makes no specific predictions
regarding the relationship of financial incentives and performance per se, although under
certain conditions, deviations from fairness may erode the association of financial incentives to
performance
Previous findings
• Jenkins 1986 → both laboratory and field experiments clearly demonstrate the positive effects
of financial incentives on performance quantity, although a similar effect was absent with
respect to performance quality
• Expectancy theory reviews also support a positive relationship between financial incentives and
task performance (however all 4 reviews are qualitative)
, Method
• Inclusion criteria
o conducted during 1960 to 1996
o empirical
o “hard” performance measures (no self-report)
o focus on financial incentives at the individual rather than group or organizational level
o control group or a premeasure with explicit manipulation
o focus on monetary rather than nonmonetary incentives
o adult population
• 39 studies (47 relationships)
• Moderators
o Setting – because previous findings show stronger results in laboratory settings than
other (30 laboratory experiments, 9 experimental simulations, and 8 field experiments)
o Task type (extrinsic, intrinsic)
o Theoretical framework – because the impact of financial incentives is typically examined
within a theoretical framework
Results
• 30.3% of observed variance is explained by sampling and measurement errors
• Moderators
o Setting consistently moderated the financial incentives-performance relationship
o Task type – ambiguous → average corrected correlation is only slightly lower for
intrinsic tasks than for extrinsic tasks
o Theoretical framework - varies
Conclusion
• Financial incentives were not related to performance quality (only based on 6 studies though)
but had a corrected correlation of .34 with performance quantity.
o Support expectancy (most supported), reinforcement, and goal-setting theories
o Not for cognitive evaluation theory
• Setting (laboratory, field, experimental simulation) and theoretical framework moderated the
relationship, but task type did not
o The strongest relationships were observed in experimental simulations (.56), followed
by field experiments (.48) and laboratory experiments (.24)
o Theoretical framework guides the design of the research, affecting the salience of
different variables for subjects-respondents
• Overall, this study underscores the generalizable positive relationship between financial
incentives and performance (quantity)
• Increase in extrinsic motivation, not intrinsic
• Limitations
o Strict criteria limit representativeness – also a strength for conclusions
o Dissertations and unpublished works were not included
o Reliability estimates not available
o Subjective decisions on the way
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper zia818. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 75759 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen