دانلود رایگان مقاله لاتین رتبه و عملکرد کارکنان از سایت الزویر
عنوان فارسی مقاله:
اطلاعات عملکرد نسبی، سفارش رتبه و عملکرد کارکنان: یک یادداشت پژوهشی
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:
Relative performance information, rank ordering and employee performance: A research note
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله رتبه و عملکرد کارکنان اینجا کلیک نمایید.
مقدمه انگلیسی مقاله:
1. Introduction
Many organizations distribute information about peer performance levels among their employees. For example, plant managers are informed about other plants’ costs, sales people are informed about each other’s revenues and margins, and business unit CEOs can compare the results of their unit with the results of other units. Even though the provision of such detailed relative performance information (RPI) is quite common, we know little about whether or how it affects employees’ effort and performance (Luft, 2016; Mahlendorf et al., 2014; Newman and Tafkov, 2014). Neither is there much research that has examined if the effects of detailed RPI provision are contingent upon the way in which this information is presented. This is an important issue though, given that there is much variation in the layout of performance reports and the presentation format of peer performance levels (Blanes i Vidal and Nossol, 2011; Hannan et al., 2014). In this research note, we report on a laboratory experiment that we designed to answer two questions. First, does the provision of detailed RPI affect employee performance? Second, do the effects of RPI provision on employee performance depend on how this information is pre sented to employees, specifically on whether and how employees are explicitly ranked based on their performance levels? Building on insights from the psychology and behavioral economics literature (e.g., Besley and Ghatak, 2008; Festinger, 1954), we argue that RPI provision will increase employee performance. The reason is that RPI enables social comparison, which is an important non-monetary driver of work effort. We extend this reasoning further to suggest that differences in the RPI presentation format can influence the extent to which RPI motivates employees to increase their performance, because presentation formats vary in the extent to which they frame the setting as a competition. We specifically argue that the ordering of different employees’ performance levels in RPI reports determines whether and how individuals will try to outperform their colleagues. Existing accounting research has examined the effects of RPI on employee effort and performance, but has tended to focus on settings that do not allow us to draw univocal conclusions about the answers to the two questions above. Most importantly, existing RPI experiments have generally not provided participants with detailed information about each other’s performance levels but, instead, with information about their relative rank. The difference between distributing information about performance levels and distributing information about rankings is important because only detailed information gives employees insight into how exactly their performance level compares to that of the average, best, and worst performer in their group, which might cause them to change their effort levels (Berger et al., 2013; Hannan et al., 2008; Wedell and Parducci, 2000). Also, by reporting performance ranks rather than performance levels, existing studies may have framed the setting as a competition or tournament, which can have incremental effects on employees’ motivation and performance. We explicitly address this issue in our study by comparing the performance effects of three types of RPI reports, which vary in the extent to which they emphasize rankings. In our experiment, groups of five participants engaged in multiple rounds of a real effort task. Consistent with existing accounting experiments (e.g., Tafkov, 2013; Hannan et al., 2013) and real world settings, the participants did not receive any performancedependent pay. We manipulated whether – and if so, how – they received information aboutthe other group members’ performance levels after eachroundofthe task. One experimental groupreceived no RPI, while the other three groups received RPI reports that vary in how the group members’ performance levels are ordered. In one condition participants received reports in which the group members’ performance levels were not explicitly ranked, but presented in random order. This is reminiscent of company practices listing employee or unit performance (e.g., revenue or profit) alphabetically or geographically. In the two other conditions, group members’ performance was explicitly ranked, reminiscent of for example the use of intra-organizational ‘league tables’ (Moon and Fitzgerald, 1996; Northcott and Llewellyn, 2003). Participants in these ranked-RPI conditions either received reports that ranked group members from best-to-worst or reports that ranked them from worst-to-best, representing ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ ranking systems, respectively. The results of the experiment indicate that RPI provision increases employee performance, but that whether or not RPI reports explicitly rank team members based on their performance is irrelevant in this respect. We also find no difference in average employee responses to best-to-worst rankings and worst-to-best rankings. Supplemental analyses provide some insights into the different responses of stronger and weaker performers to detailed RPI and to alternative types of rankings. Descriptive evidence suggests that the average performance increase due to RPI provision is primarilydrivenbyperformers intheupperdeciles oftheperformance distribution. Also, we find that weaker performers do better under loser rankings than under winner rankings, whereas there is no such difference for stronger performers. Our research note contributes to the literature by examining how employees respond to the distribution of detailed peer performance information in a setting in which there are no monetary incentives. Our main conclusion that employees respond to such information by increasing their performance is consistent with our reasoning that RPI provision leads to social comparison, which is an important non-monetary motivator of effort. The result is important for management accounting research and practice because it suggests that the positive effects of RPI provision that have been documented in the literature are not limited to settings in which RPI consists of information about rankings. More generally, the result highlights the importance of non-monetary incentives and symbolic rewards that trigger affective states such as pride and shame, as antecedents of individuals’ responses to management accounting and control systems in organizations. In addition, our study is the first that we are aware of to examine whether explicitly ranking RPI has a notable effect on employee performance and the first to explicitly compare best-to-worst and worst-to-best rankings. While we find that whether and how RPI is ranked has little effect on average performance levels, additional exploratory analyses also indicate the effects of ranking might be different for relatively high and relatively low performing employees. These findings contribute to ongoing debates in the literature on the incentive effects of rankings (Brown et al., 2014; Charness et al., 2014; Tran and Zeckhauser, 2012) and on how the framing of information influences employee behavior (e.g., Church et al., 2008)
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله رتبه و عملکرد کارکنان اینجا کلیک نمایید.
کلمات کلیدی:
Private and Public Relative Performance Information under Different ... aaapubs.org › The Accounting Review › January 2013 by ID Tafkov - 2012 - Cited by 59 - Related articles This study investigates the effect of relative performance information (RPI) on the ..... does not capture all higher-order cognitive abilities required from employees to ... In the public RPI condition, participants receive their own performance rank ... [PPT]Employee Appraisal - ETSU - Faculty faculty.etsu.edu/blanton/appraisal.ppt Performance appraisals provide information necessary for employees to .... A performance appraisal that measures the relative performance of employees in a group. This is a method of performance evaluation that results in a rank ordering of ... Recruitment and Selection in Canada - Page 200 - Google Books Result https://books.google.com/books?isbn=017650012X Victor Michael Catano - 2009 - Employee selection to establish a rank order of performance. With the exception of the relative percentile method, these techniques provide global ... The tradeoff for avoiding these errors is the loss of performance information on specific job dimensions. Recent Management Accounting Research Articles - Elsevier https://www.journals.elsevier.com/management-accounting-research/recent-articles Formal controls and alliance performance: The effects of alliance motivation ... Relative performance information, rank ordering and employee performance: A ... Kramer, Stephan Accounting Research Ranking www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/indrank/rankings_per_ind.php?authorid=6799... The ranking is computed by rank ordering all professors based on number of ... Relative performance information, rank ordering and employee performance: A ... hr chapter 8 Flashcards | Quizlet https://quizlet.com/40670189/hr-chapter-8-flash-cards/ measuring performance, and feeding back performance information. ... It measures each employee's performance to identify where .... Simple ranking requires managers to rank employees in their group from the ... order to avoid conflict. ... measurement can look at each employee's performance relative to a uniform set of
