IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v6y2015i4p588-603d58362.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of the Decision-Making Regime on Cooperation in a Workgroup Social Dilemma: An Examination of Cyberloafing

Author

Listed:
  • Brice Corgnet

    (Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University, 1 University Drive, Orange, CA 92866, USA
    Economic Science Institute, Chapman University, 1 University Drive, Orange, CA 92866, USA)

  • Roberto Hernán-González

    (Business School, Nottingham University, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK)

  • Matthew W. McCarter

    (College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1 UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
    Economic Science Institute, Chapman University, 1 University Drive, Orange, CA 92866, USA)

Abstract

A burgeoning problem facing organizations is the loss of workgroup productivity due to cyberloafing. The current paper examines how changes in the decision-making rights about what workgroup members can do on the job affect cyberloafing and subsequent work productivity. We compare two different types of decision-making regimes: autocratic decision-making and group voting. Using a laboratory experiment to simulate a data-entry organization, we find that, while autocratic decision-making and group voting regimes both curtail cyberloafing (by over 50%), it is only in group voting that there is a substantive improvement (of 38%) in a cyberloafer’s subsequent work performance. Unlike autocratic decision-making, group voting leads to workgroups outperforming the control condition where cyberloafing could not be stopped. Additionally, only in the group voting regime did production levels of cyberloafers and non-loafers converge over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Matthew W. McCarter, 2015. "The Role of the Decision-Making Regime on Cooperation in a Workgroup Social Dilemma: An Examination of Cyberloafing," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:6:y:2015:i:4:p:588-603:d:58362
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/6/4/588/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/6/4/588/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eriksson, Tor & Poulsen, Anders & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2009. "Feedback and incentives: Experimental evidence," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 679-688, December.
    2. Chen, Xiao-Ping & Bachrach, Daniel G., 2003. "Tolerance of free-riding: The effects of defection size, defection pattern, and social orientation in a repeated public goods dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 139-147, January.
    3. van Dijk, Frans & Sonnemans, Joep & van Winden, Frans, 2001. "Incentive systems in a real effort experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 187-214, February.
    4. Detmar W. Straub, 1990. "Effective IS Security: An Empirical Study," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 255-276, September.
    5. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Eric Schniter, 2015. "Why real leisure really matters: incentive effects on real effort in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 284-301, June.
    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. De Paola, Maria & Gioia, Francesca & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2019. "Free-riding and knowledge spillovers in teams: The role of social ties," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 74-90.
    2. Kim, Sungdoo, 2018. "Managing millennials’ personal use of technology at work," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 261-270.
    3. Brice Corgnet & Brian Gunia & Roberto Hernán González, 2021. "Harnessing the power of social incentives to curb shirking in teams," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 139-167, February.
    4. Adrian Chadi & Mario Mechtel & Vanessa Mertins, 2022. "Smartphone bans and workplace performance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 287-317, February.
    5. Koch, Alexander K. & Nafziger, Julia, 2016. "Gift exchange, control, and cyberloafing: A real-effort experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 409-426.

    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. Brandts, Jordi & Corgnet, Brice & Hernán-González, Roberto & Ortiz, José Mª & Solà, Carles, 2021. "Watching or not watching? Access to information and the incentive effects of firing threats," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 672-685.
    2. Bejarano, Hernán & Corgnet, Brice & Gómez-Miñambres, Joaquín, 2021. "Economic stability promotes gift-exchange in the workplace," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 374-398.
    3. Haeckl, Simone & Sausgruber, Rupert & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2024. "Work motivation and teams," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    4. Corgnet, Brice & Martin, Ludivine & Ndodjang, Peguy & Sutan, Angela, 2019. "On the merit of equal pay: Performance manipulation and incentive setting," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 23-45.
    5. Brice Corgnet & Ludivine Martin & Peguy Ndodjang & Angela Sutan, 2015. "On the Merit of Equal Pay: When Influence Activities Interact with Incentive Setting," Working Papers 15-09, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    6. 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.
    7. Simon Gächter & Lingbo Huang & Martin Sefton, 2016. "Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: the ball-catching task," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 687-712, December.
    8. Kenju Kamei & Thomas Markussen, 2023. "Free Riding and Workplace Democracy—Heterogeneous Task Preferences and Sorting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(7), pages 3884-3904, July.
    9. Brice Corgnet & Brian Gunia & Roberto Hernán González, 2021. "Harnessing the power of social incentives to curb shirking in teams," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 139-167, February.
    10. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria, 2019. "Measuring costly effort using the slider task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 1-9.
    11. Jared Rubin & Anya Samek & Roman Sheremeta, 2016. "Incentivizing Quantity and Quality of Output: An Experimental Investigation of The Quantity-Quality Trade-Off," Artefactual Field Experiments 00438, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Eric Schniter, 2015. "Why real leisure really matters: incentive effects on real effort in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 284-301, June.
    13. Brice Corgnet, 2018. "Rac(g)e Against the Machine? Social Incentives When Humans Meet Robots," Post-Print halshs-01984467, HAL.
    14. Bäker, Agnes & Mertins, Vanessa, 2013. "Risk-sorting and preference for team piece rates," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 285-300.
    15. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    16. Vanessa Mertins & Wolfgang Hoffeld, 2015. "Do Overconfident Workers Cooperate Less? The Relationship Between Overconfidence and Cooperation in Team Production," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 265-274, June.
    17. Fanzheng Yang & Yujiao Shi & Weiwei Weng, 2020. "Be proactive or inactive: The effects of systematic job riskiness on effort investment," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 599-607, June.
    18. Emanuela Lezzi & Piers Fleming & Daniel John Zizzo, 2015. "Does it matter which effort task you use? A comparison of four effort tasks when agents compete for a prize," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-05, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2012. "A Structural Analysis of Disappointment Aversion in a Real Effort Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 469-503, February.
    20. Corgnet, Brice & Gómez-Miñambres, Joaquín & Hernán-González, Roberto, 2018. "Goal setting in the principal–agent model: Weak incentives for strong performance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 311-326.

    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:gam:jgames:v:6:y:2015:i:4:p:588-603:d:58362. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.