Please use this form to submit your study for inclusion into our database. It will be checked by a member of the Innovation Growth Lab team, who may be in contact to ask for more information. Your email address * Your name * Title * The name of the study Short summary In the context of a major consumer credit company in a department where employees conduct measurable and relatively low-complexity tasks, there were significant differences between the effects on performance of routine pay for performance and the O.B. Mod.-administered money. This points to the importance of theory-based, systematic application procedures. Supervisors can quickly be trained in the steps of behavioural management, and can effectively implement them quickly to obtain positive performance results. A brief description of the project's goals and its current state Abstract <p>In this field experiment, we first compared the performance effects of money systematically administered through the organizational behavior modification (O.B. Mod.) model and routine pay for performance and then compared the effects of O.B. Mod.- administered money, social recognition, and performance feedback. The money intervention based on the O.B. Mod. outperformed routine pay for performance (performance increase = 37% vs. 11%) and also had stronger effects on performance than social recognition (24%) and performance feedback (20%).</p> The full abstract of the study, if available Links http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069372 Links to any published papers and related discussions Authors * Affiliations Academic and other institutes that the authors of the study are members of Delivery partner Organisations involved in delivering the trial, if appropriate Year Year Year199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026 Month MonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Day Day12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 Journal Journal publishing the study, if available Publication stage * Working Paper Published Ongoing Research Forthcoming Discussion Paper Research theme * Entrepreneurship Innovation Business Growth Country Country or countries where this study took place. Topics What sort of topics does the study cover? Sample attributes Hypotheses / research question What effect does money have on performance when it is routinely administered as pay for performance versus systematically applied through the theory-based steps of the "organisational behaviour modification model" (O.B. Mod. model)? What are the relative performance effects of money, social recognition, and feedback, when all three are commonly implemented through the O.B. Mod. model? Hypothesis 1: Money, systematically administered using the O.B. Mod. model, will have a greater impact on employee performance than will pay for performance routinely administered with no systematic application steps. Hypothesis 2: When all three incentive motivators are applied in the same way through the O.B. Mod. model, money produces the strongest effect on performance, followed by social recognition, and then by performance feedback. Sample Trial population and sample selection The sample was drawn from two separate facilities performing identical work (processing and mailing credit card bills), within the operations division of the same large company, with over 7,000 employees in one metropolitan area. Number of treatment groups Size of treatment groups Monetary incentives group: 43 workers; Social recognition group: 50 workers; Performance feedback group: 39 workers Size of control group Unit of analysis Clustered? Yes No Cluster details Trial attributes Treatment description Control (performance pay): simply received supplemental pay for increased performance, and workers were informed of this intervention. The three treatment groups operated under the O.B. Mod. model of behavioural management. Each groups' managers and supervisors had an identical training session, apart from the type of intervention they were to use. Monetary incentives group: clearly communicated the payout scheme. Discussed with workers whether they viewed the payout for performance as meaningful and worthwhile, provided workers with ongoing coaching, and continually reminded workers the monetary bonuses would be forthcoming when the workers were engaged in the critical performance behaviours. Social recognition group: administered personal recognition upon observing workers performing the specific behaviours identified. Supervisors did not give sugary praise, but rather gave specific concrete examples of awareness of positive performance. Feedback intervention group: supervisors developed charts and other objective information concerning the frequency of the identified critical performance behaviours. Rounds of data collection Baseline data collection and method Real-time data collected on individual performance by a meter at each employee's workstation during a baseline pre-intervention month. Data collection method and data collected Evaluation Outcome variables <p>Worker performance.</p> Results <p>Routine pay for performance: Increased performance over its baseline level by 11%. Monetary incentives through the O.B. Mod. model: Increased performance over its baseline level by 31.7%, and the roughly 20% difference in performance from the routine pay for performance group is statistically significant. Social Recognition: Increased performance over its baseline level by 24%. Feedback: Increased performance over its baseline level by 20%. The magnitude was not statistically difference from the social recognition group, but both social recognition and feedback were statistically different in magnitude from the monetary incentives through the O.B. Mod. model.</p> Intervention costs Not available. Cost benefit ratio Reference Stajkovic, A. D., Luthans, F., 2001. 'Differential Effects of Incentive Motivators on Work Performance'. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44(3), pages 580-590. Citation for use in academic references
