To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
2 results ✕ Clear filters

The (Un)Controllability Principle: The Benefits of Holding Employees Accountable for Uncontrollable Factors

Journal of Accounting Research 2023 61(2), 653-690 open access
The controllability principle suggests that employees should not be held accountable for factors outside their control. This study develops novel theory to challenge that thinking. According to the theory, holding employees accountable for uncontrollable factors like peer performance can lead to improved decision‐making by increasing how much employees learn from those uncontrollable factors. I expect this effect to occur because goal‐focused employees only consider information that seems goal‐relevant, and uncontrollable factors only seem goal relevant when employees are held accountable for them. Results from a decision‐making experiment support the theory. In particular, paying participants based on uncontrollable factors improves their decision‐making despite providing them with weaker economic incentives. This positive effect is more pronounced when the uncontrollable factors are more informative and when individuals are more goal‐focused. These findings reveal a previously unexplored benefit of disregarding the controllability principle that can help explain why broad, uncontrollable metrics are so prevalent and successful in practice.

Ambiguous Sticks and Carrots: The Effect of Contract Framing and Payoff Ambiguity on Employee Effort

The Accounting Review 2023 98(1), 139-162
Research suggests that employees work harder under penalty contracts than under economically equivalent bonus contracts. We build on this literature by examining how the motivational advantage of penalty contracts depends on a common aspect of real-world contracts: payoff ambiguity. With payoff ambiguity, employees provide effort without knowing how much pay they will receive for a given level of performance. According to our theory, this ambiguity opens the door for employee optimism, which has contrasting effects under each contract frame. Results from an experiment support this theory, with an increase in ambiguity leading to less employee effort with penalty contracts (as employees optimistically expect small penalties) and more effort with bonus contracts (as employees optimistically expect large bonuses). We also find that these effects are stronger for more dispositionally optimistic employees. Overall, our results suggest that bonus contracts may be more motivating and penalty contracts less motivating than previously thought.