Performance Pay, Group Selection and Group Performance
| Abstract | Within a laboratory experiment we investigate a principal-agent game in which agents may, first, self-select into a group task (GT) or an individual task (IT) and, second, choose work effort. In their choices of task and effort the agents have to consider pay contracts for both tasks as offered by the principal. The rational solution of the game implies that contract design may not induce agents to select GT and provide positive effort in GT. Furthermore it predicts equal behavior of agents with different productivities. In contrast, considerations of trust, reciprocity and cooperation – the social-emotional model of behavior – suggest that contract design can influence the agents’ willingness to join groups and provide effort. We analyze the data by applying a two-step regression model (multinomial logit and tobit) and find that counter to the rational solution, contract design does influence both, task selection and effort choice. The principal can increase participation in work groups and can positively influence group performance. Larger payment increases the share of socially motivated agents in work groups. The selection effect is larger than the motivation effect. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesNicholas S. Thompson (2000). Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group Level. Behavior and Philosophy 28 (1/2):83 - 101.
Roland E. Kidwell & Sean R. Valentine (2009). Positive Group Context, Work Attitudes, and Organizational Misbehavior: The Case of Withholding Job Effort. Journal of Business Ethics 86 (1):15 - 28.
Philip Pettit (2005). Group Agency and Supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (Supplement):85-105.
Rachael Briggs (2012). The Normative Standing of Group Agents. Episteme 9 (3):283-291.
Deborah G. Mayo & Norman L. Gilinsky (1987). Models of Group Selection. Philosophy of Science 54 (4):515-538.
Elliott Sober (1980). Holism, Individualism, and the Units of Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:93 - 121.
Christian List (2011). Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford University Press.
Christian List & Philip Pettit (2006). Group Agency and Supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (S1):85-105.
Fabrizio Cariani (2012). Epistemology in Group Agency : Six Objections in Search of the Truth. [REVIEW] Camrbridge Core Philosophy 9 (3):255-269.
Barteld Kooi & Allard Tamminga (2008). Moral Conflicts Between Groups of Agents. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (1):1-21.
Keith E. Stanovich Richard & F. West (1998). Cognitive Ability and Variation in Selection Task Performance. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (3):193 – 230.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
