The effect of communication in incentive systems—an experimental study

In organizational theory, it is a widely accepted postulate that cooperation among subjects is enforceable. This assumption is essential for the evaluation of two frequently discussed incentive systems: team and tournament compensation. Whereas in team‐based pay systems cooperation is highly desired, cooperation in rank‐order tournaments—labeled as ‘collusion’—is regarded as one of the main drawbacks of relative performance evaluation. In this experimental study, two different communication technologies are introduced into both incentive environments. The results indicate that when only limited communication is permitted subjects tend to cheat on each other in the tournament rather than in the team setting. Interestingly, allowing subjects to exchange emails leads to a similarly stable cooperation in both incentive systems. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Feedback in Tournaments under Commitment Problems: Experimental Evidence

We theoretically as well as experimentally analyze tournaments in which one of the agents leads over the other before entering the tournament, that is, in which one of the competitors benefits from a head start. The principal may decide upon informing the agents about the degree of this asymmetry. She cannot commit to giving feedback ex ante or not and, thus, chooses the strategy that is optimal for her ex post. In equilibrium, the principal reveals information if the asymmetry is not too large. Our experimental findings qualitatively confirm our theoretical prediction. Moreover, behavior of the principal and the agents is well aligned to each other.     

Sabotage in Corporate Contests – An Experimental Analysis

In corporate contests, employees compete for a prize. Ideally, contests induce employees to exert productive effort which increases their probability of winning. In many environments, however, employees can also improve their own ranking position by harming their colleagues. Such negative incentive effects of corporate contests are largely unexplored, which can partly be attributed to the fact that sabotaging behavior is almost unobservable in the field. In this study we analyze behavior in experimental contests with heterogeneous players who are able to mutually sabotage each other. We find that sabotaging behavior systematically varies with the composition of different types of contestants. Moreover, if the saboteur’s identity is revealed sabotage decreases while retaliation motives prevail. Our results promise to be valuable when designing corporate contests.     

Job rotation and employee performance – evidence from a longitudinal study in the financial services industry

Job rotation, i.e. a lateral transfer of an employee between jobs within a company, is frequently used as a means to develop employees, learn about their abilities as well as to motivate them. We investigate the determinants and performance effects of job rotation empirically by analyzing a large panel data-set covering the German banking and financial services sector. In particular, we study (i) how prior individual performance affects the propensity to rotate and (ii) how performance changes after the rotation. We find that while both, low- and high-performers rotate, lateral moves are more frequent among low performers. However, those having been rotated between jobs achieve a higher performance in subsequent years as compared to other non-rotating employees in a comparable position. Interestingly, this effect is driven by high performers, whereas for low performers, we find no significant relationship between job rotation and future performance. The results thus suggest that firms should focus their job rotation programs on high performers and should not expect that low performers achieve performance gains when being rotated to a different function.     

On the Competition of Asymmetric Agents

Abstract. Rank-order tournaments are usually implemented in organizations to provide incentives for eliciting employees' effort and/or to identify the agent with the higher ability, for example in promotion tournaments. We close a gap in the literature by experimentally analyzing a ceteris paribus variation of the prize spread – being the major design feature of tournaments – in a symmetric and an asymmetric setting. We find that effort significantly increases with the prize spread as predicted by standard theory. However, only for sufficiently large prize spreads weak players competing against strong players strain themselves all the more and sorting of agents is feasible.