[Firms are redesigning operations to reduce slack and waste and improve performance (Hoerr 1989; Safizadeh 1991; Walton 1987) and this often involves reorganizing production workers into workgroups to foster cooperation and group participation in setting standards (Hayes et al. 1988; Schonberger 1986). In addition to employing incentive schemes linked to meeting standards, many firms are using bonuses tied to relative performance among groups to develop a spirit of intergroup competition. Over the past two years, we made several visits to three Fortune 500 manufacturing firms involved in such changes.1 The site visits suggested several hypotheses that merited further investigation. Thus, we designed a laboratory experiment to study more systematically what we had observed in the field. This study extends previous research on determinants of slack and performance (e.g., Chow 1983; Chow et al. 1988; Waller and Chow 1985; Young 1985) by: (1) incorporating our observations and the literature on intragroup cooperation and competitive feedback to develop hypotheses, (2) studying workgroups rather than individuals, and (3) using a multi-period rather than single-period setting. Results of the experiment show that the type of competitive feedback received by groups affected both their output and slack. Interestingly, when individuals were allowed to cooperate rather than work in isolation, performance actually declined. This latter result was unexpected and was likely the consequence of the particular experimental task.]

Firms are redesigning operations to reduce slack and waste and improve performance (Hoerr 1989; Safizadeh 1991; Walton 1987) and this often involves reorganizing production workers into workgroups to foster cooperation and group participation in setting standards (Hayes et al. 1988; Schonberger 1986). In addition to employing incentive schemes linked to meeting standards, many firms are using bonuses tied to relative performance among groups to develop a spirit of intergroup competition. Over the past two years, we made several visits to three Fortune 500 manufacturing firms involved in such changes. The site visits suggested several hypotheses that merited further investigation. Thus, we designed a laboratory experiment to study more systematically what we had observed in the field. This study extends previous research on determinants of slack and performance (e.g.. Chow 1983; Chow et al. 1988; Waller and Chow 1985; Young 1985) by: (1) incorporating our observations and the literature on intragroup cooperation and competitive feedback to develop hypotheses, (2) studying workgroups rather than individuals, and (3) using a multiperiod rather than single-period setting. Results of the experiment show that the type of competitive feedback received by groups affected both their output and slack. Interestingly, when individuals were allowed to cooperate rather than work In isolation, performance actually declined. This latter result was unexpected and was likely the consequence of the particular experimental task.

Despite the common use of negotiations to set budgets in practice, accounting research has focused primarily on budgets set unilaterally by subordinates, while goal-setting research in management has focused primarily on budgets set unilaterally by superiors. In addition, budgeting research in accounting has focused almost exclusively on the planning aspects of budgets to the exclusion of their motivational aspects. This study complements prior research in two ways. First, the study examines how budgets and the economic consequences of the budget-setting process differ when budgets are set through a negotiation process vs. when set unilaterally. The study also considers factors associated with negotiation agreement and the relation between agreement and the economic consequences of negotiated budgets. Second, the economic consequences examined are budgetary slack and subordinate performance, allowing us to address the trade-offs between the planning and motivational aspects of budgets. Negotiated budgets differ from unilaterally set budgets in a manner consistent with social norms and/or information transfer occurring during negotiations. Both the budgets and the economic consequences of the budgetsetting process differ when budgets are set through a negotiation process where superiors have final authority in the event of a negotiation impasse vs. when set unilaterally by superiors. Further, negotiation agreement significantly affects the economic consequences of negotiated budgets. Budgets set through a negotiation process ending in agreement contain significantly less slack. A failed negotiation followed by superiors imposing a budget has a significant detrimental effect on subordinate performance.

Employment relationships provide fertile ground for both employee and employer opportunism. Employers worry about whether employees will devote sufficient effort to work, and employees are concerned about whether employers will compensate them appropriately. In this paper, we examine whether employer discretion over the size of the total employee compensation pool and the allocation of this pool among employees influences employee and employer opportunism. The results of our experiment indicate that firm output and employees' compensation are greater when the employer does not have discretion over total employee compensation, but does have discretion over the allocation of total compensation. We find that the employer's residual profit increases with discretion over the allocation of compensation among employees; however, we find no effect on residual profit of the employer's discretion over the total amount of employee compensation. Our results suggest that firms benefit from a compensation contract that establishes total employee compensation as a predetermined function of public, aggregate measures such as accounting income, but provides the employer at least some discretion to allocate this compensation using private information. However, our results caution that employees and employers may not have similar preferences for the degree of employer discretion over the determination of total employee compensation.