In an environment where three-person groups develop a creative solution to an important problem, we examine whether the efficacy of either individual- or group-based creativity-contingent incentives depends on whether they take the piece-rate or tournament form. We predict and find that group (intergroup) tournament pay increases group cohesion and collaborative efforts, which ultimately lead to a more creative group solution, relative to group piece-rate pay. While individual (intragroup) tournament pay increases individual efforts, we find that it does not enhance the creativity of group solutions relative to individual piece-rate pay. Our results advance the burgeoning management accounting literature on creativity-contingent incentives by demonstrating that reward systems are more likely to promote group creativity through collaborative efforts rather than independent individual efforts. We also provide important insights into when and why tournament pay can boost group creativity in organizations. In doing so, we contribute to a better understanding of observations from practice suggesting that organizations valuing creativity often induce intergroup competition. Data Availability: The experimental data are available upon request.

We investigate the effect of board gender diversity (BGD) on investment outcomes. We identify variation in BGD by compiling, for the first time, a global catalog of 83 BGD interventions implemented in 59 countries between 1999 and 2021. Using a staggered difference-in-differences research design, we document that BGD interventions improve investment outcomes. We find that treated firms reduce inefficient investment by 0.6 percent of total assets or 6.5 percent of total investment and are 4 percentage points more likely to have above-median investment efficiency. Cross-sectional tests reveal more pronounced results when BGD interventions are mandatory, are strongly enforced, and result in larger BGD increases. Event-time, stacked panel, and a wide variety of endogeneity-mitigating robustness tests corroborate. Our plausibly causal inferences have important implications for both research and practice.

Many companies administer wage policies based on tournaments or have different salaries attached to various promotion-based ranks within the company. Employees, however, do not always receive information about pay-level differences at higher ranks prior to joining the company. While some companies openly disclose prize spread information across these ranks, others keep such information secret. In this paper, we experimentally investigate whether the availability of tournament prize spread information enhances employee effort through both a selection effect and a motivation effect. We predict and find that when employees can select into tournaments of varying prize spreads (which proxies for an environment where prize spread information is available), high-ability employees are more likely than low-ability employees to select into the tournament with a larger prize spread. Thus, the availability of prize spread information produces a separation of employees based on ability. We also find that employees exert more effort when they can select into a tournament than when they are randomly assigned to one (which proxies for an environment where prize spread information is absent). We show that this result is driven by greater homogeneity in the ability of tournament contestants when the availability of tournament prize spread information provides self-selection opportunity. JEL Classifications: C91; D83; M40. Data Availability: Experimental data are available from the authors on request.

Penalty contracts are commonly utilized in developing countries. Such contracts may be perceived as unfair, potentially reducing employee motivation and performance. We predict that adding a second‐chance provision , an opportunity to reverse a penalty for poor performance if subsequent performance improves, could improve the effectiveness of penalty contracts. In a quasi field experiment at a company with two manufacturing facilities in Taiwan, we treated one facility with a traditional‐penalty contract without a second‐chance provision and the other with a penalty contract with a second‐chance provision. We observe a significant difference in the two treatment effects, with employee performance decreasing significantly after the traditional‐penalty treatment but showing no decrease when a second‐chance provision was included. Further analysis reveals that this difference is mediated by employees' fairness perceptions. These results provide valuable insights to governments, nongovernmental organizations, and multinationals as they work together to improve the fairness of global compensation practices.

Creativity-dependent companies often implement failure disclosure programs to encourage employees to publicly disclose failures encountered in exploration activities with a focus on learning. We examine the effects of failure disclosure on employees’ exploration performance using an experiment in which participants perform a letter-search task by counting the search letters in each question (i.e., exploitation) or identifying an embedded shortcut that applies to all questions (i.e., exploration). We manipulate two factors: (1) whether participants are encouraged to disclose their failed attempts at finding the shortcut to future participants and (2) whether they are evaluated for their task-related skills. We predict and find failure disclosure increases the likelihood of shortcut identification in the presence of evaluation, and this effect is mitigated in the absence of evaluation. Because evaluation is typically present in natural work settings, our theory and results suggest failure disclosure is an effective mechanism to increase employees’ exploration performance.

The firm‐level bullwhip effect is the amplification of demand uncertainty along a supply chain—that is, fluctuations in production (for manufacturing firms) or purchases from suppliers (for retailers or wholesalers) in a firm tend to be greater than its demand fluctuations. We predict that the bullwhip ratio (a proxy for the bullwhip effect) amplifies the relation between demand uncertainty and cost structure. We expect this amplifying effect because the bullwhip ratio determines the extent to which demand uncertainty translates into uncertainty in production or purchases, which, in turn, affects cost structure. Using data from public US firms over the 1990–2020 period, we find results consistent with our prediction. Specifically, we find that both the negative relation between demand uncertainty and cost elasticity in the manufacturing sector and the positive relation between the two in the retail/wholesale sectors are stronger for firms with higher bullwhip ratios. We contribute to the literature on cost structure by highlighting the important role of the bullwhip effect in cost structure decisions.

This paper empirically examines the interactive effect of competition intensity and competition type on the use of customer satisfaction measures in executives' annual bonus contracts. Specifically, we predict a stronger association between competition intensity in an industry and the use of customer satisfaction measures in executives' annual bonus contracts when the competition is non-price-based than when the competition is price-based. Using hand-collected data from Standard & Poor's (S&P) 1500 firms' disclosures of the use of customer satisfaction measures in executive bonus contracts in 2006 and 2010 proxy statements, we find results consistent with our prediction. Our results are robust to alternative measures of competition type and competition intensity. We also find similar results when we use the weight on customer satisfaction measures in executive bonus contracts as the dependent variable. Our study extends the literature on the effect of competition on the design of managerial incentives by distinguishing between competition intensity and competition type, and providing the first large-sample empirical evidence on the joint effect of these two dimensions of competition on the incentive use of an important nonfinancial performance measure. Data Availability: Data used in this study are obtained from publicly available sources.