IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prg/jnlaop/v2019y2019i1id616p50-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance Myopia: The Effect of Pay-For-Performance Incentives on Exploration and Coordination

Author

Listed:
  • Věra Králová
  • Pavel Král

Abstract

Incentives are one of the core practices of strategic human resource management and their effect on motivation and performance has been studied extensively. Particular attention is devoted to pay-for-performance (PFP) incentives while research on the effect of PFP incentives on performance has produced contradictory results. More importantly, incentives are not an isolated process; the effect of incentives goes beyond individual or organisational performance because they affect an entire organisation. Although incentives are included in most organisational design frameworks, the effect of incentives on other organisational design components has been neglected. The study uses the organisational design framework to focus on neglected relations between incentives and other organisational design components. The purpose of the study is to explore what are the organisational design components and how they are influenced by PFP incentives. A case study research design was used. The data was collected in a small company in which the incentive system was changed to PFP incentives as a part of substantial changes in the organisational design. Data was collected through interviews with employees, supported by internal documentation and observation. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. In the case, the PFP incentives led to higher performance although the PFP incentives restricted the new exploratory strategy and harmed cooperation. The effect of the PFP incentives on exploration and cooperation was slow, and hardly visible, predominantly as a result of unintentionally deviated attention.The study points out that focusing solely on performance when designing incentive systems may be myopic because PFP incentives may have a detrimental effect on other organisational design components. Based on the results, the paper provides a set of suggestions to consider when implementing PFP incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Věra Králová & Pavel Král, 2019. "Performance Myopia: The Effect of Pay-For-Performance Incentives on Exploration and Coordination," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2019(1), pages 50-69.
  • Handle: RePEc:prg:jnlaop:v:2019:y:2019:i:1:id:616:p:50-69
    DOI: 10.18267/j.aop.616
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://aop.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.aop.616.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: http://aop.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.aop.616.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18267/j.aop.616?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. Burks, Stephen & Carpenter, Jeffrey & Goette, Lorenz, 2009. "Performance pay and worker cooperation: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 458-469, June.
    2. Florian Ederer & Gustavo Manso, 2013. "Is Pay for Performance Detrimental to Innovation?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(7), pages 1496-1513, July.
    3. Sunkee Lee & Philipp Meyer-Doyle, 2017. "How Performance Incentives Shape Individual Exploration and Exploitation: Evidence from Microdata," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 19-38, February.
    4. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Performance Pay and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1346-1361, December.
    5. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    6. Burton, Richard M. & Obel, Borge, 1988. "Opportunism, incentives, and the m-form hypothesis : A laboratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 99-119, July.
    7. Paul Bate & Raza Khan & Annie Pye, 2000. "Towards A Culturally Sensitive Approach To Organization Structuring: Where Organization Design Meets Organization Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 197-211, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    2. Sunkee Lee & Phanish Puranam, 2017. "Incentive Redesign and Collaboration in Organizations: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(12), pages 2333-2352, December.
    3. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks – Evidence from a Field Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168286, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    4. Haneda, Shoko & Ito, Keiko, 2018. "Organizational and human resource management and innovation: Which management practices are linked to product and/or process innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 194-208.
    5. Jason J Sandvik & Richard E Saouma & Nathan T Seegert & Christopher T Stanton, 2020. "Workplace Knowledge Flows," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1635-1680.
    6. Jared Rubin & Anya Samek & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "Incentivizing Quantity and Quality of Output: An Experimental Investigation of the Quantity-Quality Trade-off," Working Papers 16-01, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    7. Constança Esteves-Sorenson, 2018. "Gift Exchange in the Workplace: Addressing the Conflicting Evidence with a Careful Test," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4365-4388, September.
    8. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    9. Stephan Billinger & Kannan Srikanth & Nils Stieglitz & Terry R. Schumacher, 2021. "Exploration and exploitation in complex search tasks: How feedback influences whether and where human agents search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 361-385, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Arpita Agnihotri & Saurabh Bhattacharya, 2019. "ESOPs AND NEW PRODUCT LAUNCH: CONDITIONAL EFFECTS OF FINANCIAL SLACK AND OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(03), pages 1-21, April.
    12. Heinz, Matthias & Khashabi, Pooyan & Zubanov, Nick & Kretschmer, Tobias & Friebel, Guido, 2017. "Heterogeneous Effects of Performance Pay with Market Competition: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," CEPR Discussion Papers 12474, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Manthei, Kathrin & Sliwka, Dirk & Vogelsang, Timo, 2018. "Performance Pay and Prior Learning: Evidence from a Retail Chain," IZA Discussion Papers 11859, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Wasseem Mina, 2018. "The Determinants of Social Protection Expenditures and Labor Market Flexibility," International Center for Public Policy Working Paper Series, at AYSPS, GSU paper1810, International Center for Public Policy, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    15. Florian Englmaier & Stefan Grimm & Dominik Grothe & David Schindler & Simeon Schudy, 2024. "The Effect of Incentives in Nonroutine Analytical Team Tasks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(8), pages 2695-2747.
    16. Samuel Bowles & Sandra Polania-Reyes, 2011. "Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements?," Department of Economics University of Siena 617, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    17. Gordon Burtch & Qinglai He & Yili Hong & Dokyun Lee, 2022. "How Do Peer Awards Motivate Creative Content? Experimental Evidence from Reddit," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3488-3506, May.
    18. Joachim A Holst-Hansen & Carsten Bergenholtz, 2020. "Does the size of rewards influence performance in cognitively demanding tasks?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-15, October.
    19. Jared Rubin & Anya Samek & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2018. "Loss aversion and the quantity–quality tradeoff," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 292-315, June.
    20. Cardella, Eric & Depew, Briggs, 2018. "Output restriction and the ratchet effect: Evidence from a real-effort work task," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 182-202.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pay-for-performance; incentives; exploration; coordination; organisational design; cooperation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M12 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Personnel Management; Executives; Executive Compensation
    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects

    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:prg:jnlaop:v:2019:y:2019:i:1:id:616:p:50-69. 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: Stanislav Vojir (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/uevsecz.html .

    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.