This study investigates the conditions under which providing relative performance information to employees has a positive effect on performance when compensation is not tied to peer performance. Specifically, I investigate, via an experiment, the effect of relative performance information (present or absent) on performance under two compensation contracts (flat-wage or individual performance-based). Given the presence of relative performance information, I examine the effect of the type of relative performance information (private or public) on performance. Using theory from psychology, I predict and find that relative performance information positively affects performance under the two compensation contracts and that this positive effect is greater under an individual performance-based contract than under a flat-wage contract. I also predict and find that, although both public and private relative performance information have a positive effect on performance, the effect is greater when relative performance information is public. Data Availability: Data are available from the author on request.

This study investigates whether the benefit firms can extract from team member communication to the team manager—who may use such information for rewarding individual team members—is affected by differences in the type of mutual monitoring information available to team members. We predict and find that team performance is higher when team members can observe only each other's effort than when they can observe both each other's effort and output levels; conversely, team performance is lower when team members can observe only each other's output than when they can observe both each other's effort and output levels. The intuition behind these results is that the type of observable mutual monitoring information creates different degrees of ambiguity regarding what should be considered a fair reward allocation for team members' contributions. Such ambiguity reduces the usefulness of team member communication to the manager for allocating rewards, resulting in lower team performance. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

This study investigates whether subjective communication from team members to a manager responsible for allocating performance-based bonuses increases team performance and whether the efficacy of such communication is reduced in heterogeneous teams. We draw on both economic and behavioral theories to predict that communication content, even though subjective, provides information that enables the manager to allocate bonuses so as to enhance the relation between individuals' contributions and rewards, thereby increasing individuals' effort and team performance. However, we also predict that the positive effect of team member subjective communication is more muted when team members' abilities are heterogeneous compared to homogeneous. We test these predictions via an experiment. Consistent with our predictions, team member subjective communication has a positive effect on team performance, and the positive effect is more muted for heterogeneous teams. Results of our study contribute to both theory and practice by enhancing our understanding of the role of subjective communication from team members to team managers in motivating effort in teams and, particularly, how its efficacy is affected by team composition. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

We investigate how performance-to-target (exceeding versus missing prior target) and task type (ability-driven versus effort-driven) affect managers' target-setting decisions in a setting where a manager sets targets for multiple employees. To do so, we use an experiment that involves executives, who average more than 16 years of work experience. We predict and find stronger target adjustments when prior targets are exceeded than when they are missed, especially when tasks are ability-driven. We also predict and find targets are differentiated more between employees within a firm when tasks are ability-driven rather than effort-driven, but this effect is attenuated when prior targets are missed. As prior empirical findings are inconclusive in this area of research, we contribute to the literature by providing controlled experimental evidence about the asymmetric nature of target adjustments. Additionally, we identify an important factor affecting managers' target-setting decisions—task type—that has largely been neglected in prior work.

When using a tournament in multi-period settings, firms have discretion in selecting the tournament horizon. For example, firms can use a single tournament (a grand tournament) or a sequence of multiple tournaments, each with a shorter horizon than a grand tournament (a repeated tournament). Firms have also begun to use a combination of both in which a repeated tournament is embedded within a grand tournament (a hybrid tournament). Using an experiment, we investigate whether the effect of tournament horizon on performance depends on the dynamic complexity of the task, which reflects the potential for effort in one period to influence the link between effort and performance in future periods. When dynamic task complexity is low, we find that performance is greatest in the hybrid tournament, followed by the repeated and then the grand tournament. In contrast, when dynamic task complexity is high, we find that performance is greatest in the repeated tournament, followed by the grand and hybrid tournaments, with similar performance in the latter two tournaments. More generally, the results of our experiment suggest that the effect of tournament horizon on performance depends on dynamic task complexity. These results can help firms make better decisions when designing their tournaments by reinforcing the need to align the tournament horizon with the task.

Employees’ skill development is key to organizations’ competitiveness in a global, knowledge-based economy. Prior research in accounting, however, has mainly focused on motivating the provision of transitory effort. This study investigates how relative performance information (RPI) as a management control influences employees’ willingness to engage in skill development and whether the effect of RPI depends on whether employees face a tradeoff between training and current work performance. We predict and find that RPI increases the likelihood of taking training when a work-training tradeoff is absent but decreases it when a work-training tradeoff is present. We also predict and find RPI increases employee performance when a work-training tradeoff is absent and the effect is less positive (and directionally negative) when a work-training tradeoff is present. Our paper is an important first step in investigating how management controls interfere with employees’ investment in skill development and its tradeoff with transitory effort provision. Data Availability: Data are available upon request.

This study investigates how relative performance information (RPI) affects employee performance and allocation of effort across tasks in a multi-task environment. Based on behavioral theories, we predict that the social comparison process inherent in RPI induces both a motivation effect that results in increased effort as well as an effort distortion effect that results in the distortion of effort allocations across tasks away from the firm-preferred allocations. We also predict that both effects are magnified when the RPI is public compared to private. We argue that although the motivation effect will generally benefit performance, the effort distortion effect may be detrimental to performance. We design an experiment that isolates these two effects. Consistent with our predictions, we find that RPI induces both motivation and effort distortion effects and that both effects are magnified when the RPI is public rather than private. Although the motivation effect increases performance, we demonstrate that the effort distortion effect can decrease performance. By isolating the motivation and effort distortion effects, our study provides insights into the costs and benefits of RPI in a multi-task environment. As such, it informs accountants regarding the design of information systems and when tasks should be aggregated or disaggregated across employees. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

Performance measure noise can be a critical barrier to employees' learning. Using an experiment, we examine whether the effects of performance measure noise on employees' learning depends on the type of learning in which employees engage: experiential versus vicarious. We predict and find performance measure noise has a more deleterious effect on learning when such learning occurs experientially rather than vicariously. Specifically, we find experiential learners demonstrate less learning as performance measure noise increases, but vicarious learners show no such effect of performance measure noise. Collectively, our findings suggest performance measure noise and learning type play important roles in the extent to which firms realize the decision-facilitating benefits of performance measurement systems. In particular, since much of the learning in modern organizations occurs vicariously, our findings suggest performance measure noise may not be as detrimental to employees' learning as previously thought.

Employee contracts often allow for managerial discretion, such that the manager decides after observing an employee's performance how that employee will be rewarded or penalized. Importantly, the effects of such evaluation outcomes can extend beyond the employee(s) directly affected, because such outcomes can be observed by other employees within the firm. The net effect of such vicarious learning as an indirect control depends on the inferences employees make after observing a peer's evaluation outcome. In this study, we use an experiment to investigate whether the inferences observer-employees make about how managers evaluate and reward employee behavior depend on whether the valence of the observed outcome is positive or negative. Using the setting of a strategic performance measurement system, we test and find support for a causal model, in which the valence of the observed outcome influences observer-employees' inferences and subsequent behavioral focus via their psychological distance from, and their construal of, the observed outcome. Our results suggest that how observer-employees respond after observing a peer employee's evaluation outcome is asymmetric. Specifically, when contemplating their own behavior, employees who observe positive outcomes focus on the performance measures within the strategic performance measurement system, whereas those who observe negative outcomes focus on the underlying strategic construct.