ABSTRACT This paper reports the results of multiple studies that together provide converging evidence in support of the theory that gender stereotypes bias employee selection during group recruiting events. Specifically, we predict and find that female (male) job candidates who exhibit stereotypically male behaviors receive lower (higher) evaluations during group recruiting events, particularly among male recruiters. Prior research suggests gender stereotypes do not bias employee selection during one‐on‐one interviews. However, our results suggest that evaluating job candidates in the more social context of group events can have important unintended consequences on employee selection, a key component of the accounting control environment. Given the importance of group recruiting events to inform hiring decisions across organizations such as investment banks and public accounting firms, our results contribute to a better understanding of survey and field evidence suggesting that entry‐level male and female employees have different personalities at these organizations, which appear to influence their career trajectories.

ABSTRACT We design three experiments to examine how group incentives moderate the motivational effects of cash versus tangible rewards. Our first experiment shows that, relative to individual incentives, group incentives can magnify any negative effect of the uncertain attractiveness of a less‐fungible tangible reward (versus cash), as group members must evaluate not only how attractive they find the reward themselves but also how attractive other group members are likely to find it. However, as we show in our second experiment, under group incentives, structuring a tangible reward as a shared experience among group members who like each other can mitigate any demotivating effect of an individually consumed tangible reward vis‐à‐vis a cash reward. A third experiment provides process support for our theory, showing that both the attractiveness of the reward and the degree of certainty that others will also find it attractive jointly and fully mediate our findings. As a whole, our study furthers an understanding of the multifaceted dimensions of tangible rewards, identifying incremental effects that can arise when tangible rewards are combined with group incentives.

Abstract We find that the effectiveness of piece‐rate compensation relative to fixed pay in a laboratory letter‐search task hinges on the presence or absence of a nonbinding statement to participants that the experimenter values correct responses. In the absence of the value statement, participants with piece‐rate rewards for correct responses generate more correct and incorrect responses than do their counterparts with fixed pay, correcting errors as they go along to maximize compensation. Essentially, piece‐rate compensation acts as an output control, incentivizing participants to maximize correct responses through a “produce‐and‐improve” strategy. The value statement suppresses this strategy because participants appear to perceive it as an input constraint, prompting greater initial care at the expense of lower overall productivity. As a result, the value statement eliminates the gains in correct responses that piece‐rate incentivized participants otherwise realize. Thus, in settings in which individuals can gain efficiency by working expeditiously and improving quality when necessary, our results suggest the possibility that organizations could be better off just letting incentive schemes operate, rather than emphasizing quality in ways that could overly constrain productivity.