IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v86y2020ics2214804319303581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance evaluation and creativity: Balancing originality and usefulness

Author

Listed:
  • Ostermaier, Andreas
  • Uhl, Matthias

Abstract

Innovation requires creative ideas, which are both original and useful. Usefulness is crucial for ideas to be implemented and turn into innovation. We examine how performance evaluation helps balance both dimensions. In a laboratory experiment, creators generate words, which users and jurors rate for creativity. Users use the words to write texts, whereas jurors do not use them. Creators’ pay depends either on user or juror ratings. Creators take their evaluators’ perspective and accommodate their preferences. Our findings highlight the instrumental role of the evaluator in motivating creativity. It suggests that firms involve users in performance evaluation to facilitate innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:86:y:2020:i:c:s2214804319303581
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804319303581
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101552?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wright, William F. & Anderson, Urton, 1989. "Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 68-82, August.
    2. Brüggemann, Julia & Crosetto, Paolo & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "Intellectual property rights hinder sequential innovation. Experimental evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2054-2068.
    3. Miron-Spektor, Ella & Beenen, Gerard, 2015. "Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 53-65.
    4. 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.
    5. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    6. Glenn MacDonald & Leslie M. Marx, 2001. "Adverse Specialization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(4), pages 864-899, August.
    7. Kevin Murdock, 2002. "Intrinsic Motivation and Optimal Incentive Contracts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 650-671, Winter.
    8. Julia Brüggemann & Kilian Bizer, 2016. "Laboratory experiments in innovation research: a methodological overview and a review of the current literature," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Schweisfurth, Tim G., 2017. "Comparing internal and external lead users as sources of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 238-248.
    10. George Baker, 2002. "Distortion and Risk in Optimal Incentive Contracts," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 728-751.
    11. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    12. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 39-49, February.
    13. Julia Brüggemann & Paolo Crosetto & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2016. "Intellectual property rights hinder sequential innovation: experimental evidence," Post-Print hal-01997135, HAL.
    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. 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.
    2. Grözinger, Nicola & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Laske, Katharina & Schröder, Marina, 2020. "Innovation and communication media in virtual teams – An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 201-218.
    3. Hou, Jianhua & Wang, Dongyi & Li, Jing, 2022. "A new method for measuring the originality of academic articles based on knowledge units in semantic networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    4. Mittone, Luigi & Morreale, Azzurra & Vu, Thi-Thanh-Tam, 2022. "What drives innovative behavior?- An experimental analysis on risk attitudes, creativity and performance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    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. Balmaceda, Felipe, 2016. "Optimal task assignments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 1-18.
    2. Theodor Vladasel & Simon C. Parker & Randolph Sloof & Mirjam van Praag, 2024. "Revenue drift, incentives, and effort allocation in social enterprises," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 630-651, August.
    3. Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2012. "Individual preferences, organization, and competition in a model of R&D incentive provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 550-570.
    4. Balmaceda, Felipe, 2018. "Optimal task assignments with loss-averse agents," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-26.
    5. Chen, Bo, 2012. "All-or-nothing payments," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 133-142.
    6. Carolyn J. Heinrich & Gerald Marschke, 2010. "Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 183-208.
    7. Gibbs, Michael, 2021. "Job Design, Learning & Intrinsic Motivation," IZA Discussion Papers 14285, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Jed DeVaro & Oliver Gürtler, 2016. "Strategic Shirking: A Theoretical Analysis Of Multitasking And Specialization," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 57(2), pages 507-532, May.
    9. Susan Feng Lu, 2012. "Multitasking, Information Disclosure, and Product Quality: Evidence from Nursing Homes," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 673-705, September.
    10. Dietrichson, Jens, 2013. "Coordination Incentives, Performance Measurement and Resource Allocation in Public Sector Organizations," Working Papers 2013:26, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    11. Jing Wang & Gen Li & Kai-Lung Hui, 2022. "Monetary Incentives and Knowledge Spillover: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3549-3572, May.
    12. Yann Kossi & Jean-Yves Lesueur & Mareva Sabatier, 2016. "Publish or teach? The role of the scientific environment on academics’ multitasking," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(3), pages 487-506.
    13. Jenny Kragl & Anja Schöttner, 2014. "Wage Floors, Imperfect Performance Measures, And Optimal Job Design," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 55(2), pages 525-550, May.
    14. Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2018. "Moral hazard: Base models and two extensions," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume I, chapter 16, pages 453-485, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Delfgaauw, Josse & Souverijn, Michiel, 2016. "Biased supervision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 107-125.
    16. Simon Burgess & Carol Propper & Marisa Ratto & Emma Tominey, 2017. "Incentives in the Public Sector: Evidence from a Government Agency," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 117-141, October.
    17. Thiele, Veikko, 2007. "Performance measurement in multi-task agencies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 148-163, September.
    18. Paul H. Jensen & Robin E. Stonecash, 2004. "The Efficiency of Public Sector Outsourcing Contracts: A Literature Review," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n29, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    19. Kragl, Jenny & Schöttner, Anja, 2011. "Wage floors and optimal job design," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 01/2011, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    20. Bouwens, J.F.M.G. & van Lent, L.A.G.M., 2003. "Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts," Discussion Paper 2003-130, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    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:eee:soceco:v:86:y:2020:i:c:s2214804319303581. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.