IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/joares/v61y2023i1p47-94.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creativity Contests: An Experimental Investigation of Eliciting Employee Creativity

Author

Listed:
  • JASMIJN BOL
  • LISA LAVIERS
  • JASON SANDVIK

Abstract

Running a contest can help managers elicit creative ideas from employees by providing employees with incentives to develop and share ideas that will help the firm. Little is known, however, about how contest design affects the outcomes of subjectively evaluated creativity‐based contests. We conduct an experiment to investigate the impact of two contest design choices, the job role of the contest's evaluator, and the number of prizes that participants compete for, on employee participation behavior. We also examine how these contest design choices impact the creativity of the submitted ideas. We find that using a peer of the employees as an evaluator increases the number of ideas shared, but it does not impact the number of unique participants who enter the contest. In addition, we find that using peer evaluators leads to an increase in the creativity of the ideas. We find that awarding more prizes to participants does not increase overall participation, but it does increase the number of ideas shared by employees from underrepresented demographics. Awarding more prizes, however, reduces the creativity of the ideas. Together, these results show that contest design choices have an important impact on employee creative idea‐sharing and that managers should carefully consider how to tailor contests to fit their firms' needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Jasmijn Bol & Lisa Laviers & Jason Sandvik, 2023. "Creativity Contests: An Experimental Investigation of Eliciting Employee Creativity," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 47-94, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:61:y:2023:i:1:p:47-94
    DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12466
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12466
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1475-679X.12466?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benny Moldovanu & Aner Sela, 2008. "The Optimal Allocation of Prizes in Contests," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Arye L. Hillman & Kai A. Konrad (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 1, pages 615-631, Springer.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Robert Bloomfield & Mark W. Nelson & Eugene Soltes, 2016. "Gathering Data for Archival, Field, Survey, and Experimental Accounting Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 341-395, May.
    4. Uri Gneezy & Stephan Meier & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 191-210, Fall.
    5. John A. List, 2011. "Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 3-16, Summer.
    6. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & E. Elisabet Rutström, 2007. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark: A Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 341-368, June.
    7. Steven J. Kachelmeier & Bernhard E. Reichert & Michael G. Williamson, 2008. "Measuring and Motivating Quantity, Creativity, or Both," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 341-373, May.
    8. Ostermaier, Andreas & Uhl, Matthias, 2020. "Performance evaluation and creativity: Balancing originality and usefulness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. Alan D. Morrison & William J. Wilhelm Jr, 2004. "Partnership Firms, Reputation, and Human Capital," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1682-1692, December.
    10. Shelley Xin Li & Tatiana Sandino, 2018. "Effects of an Information Sharing System on Employee Creativity, Engagement, and Performance," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 713-747, May.
    11. repec:feb:artefa:0110 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    13. Kevin J. Boudreau & Nicola Lacetera & Karim R. Lakhani, 2011. "Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 843-863, May.
    14. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anahit Mkrtchyan, & Sandvik, Jason & Xu, Da, 2024. "Employee responses to CEO activism," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin J. Boudreau & Karim R. Lakhani, 2016. "Innovation Experiments: Researching Technical Advance, Knowledge Production, and the Design of Supporting Institutions," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 135-167.
    2. Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Szech, Nora, 2023. "Designing contests between heterogeneous contestants: An experimental study of tie-breaks and bid-caps in all-pay auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis & Robert Slonim, 2014. "Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1107-1129, May.
    4. Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Sheremeta, Roman & Szech, Nora, 2016. "Designing Contests Between Heterogeneous Contestants: An Experimental Study of Tie-Breaks and Bid-Caps in All-Pay Auctions," MPRA Paper 71202, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Bordunos, A. & Kokoulina, L. & Ermolaeva, L., 2015. "Role of enterprise gamified system in fostering innovation capacity: A field experiment," Working Papers 6420, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University.
    6. Tracy Xiao Liu & Jiang Yang & Lada A. Adamic & Yan Chen, 2014. "Crowdsourcing with All-Pay Auctions: A Field Experiment on Taskcn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(8), pages 2020-2037, August.
    7. Lian Jian & Zheng Li & Tracy Xiao Liu, 2017. "Simultaneous versus sequential all-pay auctions: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 648-669, September.
    8. Jesse Bockstedt & Cheryl Druehl & Anant Mishra, 2022. "Incentives and Stars: Competition in Innovation Contests with Participant and Submission Visibility," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 1372-1393, March.
    9. Letina, Igor & Benkert, Jean-Michel, 2016. "Designing Dynamic Research Tournaments," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145738, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    11. Guido Friebel & Matthias Heinz & Miriam Krueger & Nikolay Zubanov, 2017. "Team Incentives and Performance: Evidence from a Retail Chain," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2168-2203, August.
    12. Pavel Kireyev, 2016. "Markets for Ideas: Prize Structure, Entry Limits, and the Design of Ideation Contests," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-129, Harvard Business School.
    13. John A. List, 2014. "Using Field Experiments to Change the Template of How We Teach Economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 81-89, June.
    14. List, John A. & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2015. "The behavioralist as nutritionist: Leveraging behavioral economics to improve child food choice and consumption," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 135-146.
    15. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2016. "Partner selection into policy relevant field experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 31-56.
    16. Julian Conrads & Bernd Irlenbusch & Tommaso Reggiani & Rainer Michael Rilke & Dirk Sliwka, 2016. "How to hire helpers? Evidence from a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 577-594, September.
    17. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Manuela Angelucci & Silvia Prina & Heather Royer & Anya Samek, 2015. "When Incentives Backfire: Spillover Effects in Food Choice," NBER Working Papers 21481, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Rigtering, J.P.C. (Coen) & Weitzel, G.U. (Utz) & Muehlfeld, K. (Katrin), 2019. "Increasing quantity without compromising quality: How managerial framing affects intrapreneurship," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 224-241.
    20. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Wiesen, Daniel, 2016. "Using artefactual field and lab experiments to investigate how fee-for-service and capitation affect medical service provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 17-23.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:61:y:2023:i:1:p:47-94. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-8456 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.