The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Incentives That Induce Task-Related Effort, Helping, and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups
Abstract
Cooperation and coordination among employees can yield significant productivity gains. In this study, we explore the design of optimal incentive systems that induce task-related effort, helping, and knowledge sharing within workgroups. We identify three distinct types of employee linkages that must be accommodated in the design of effective incentive systems: (1) outcome linkages, whereby the outcome of one employee's task is influenced by that of another; (2) help linkages, whereby each employee can directly expend effort on helping another; and (3) knowledge linkages, whereby each employee can share job-related knowledge with another. We analytically investigate the effect of each type of employee linkage, and some combinations of these linkages, on the optimal design of incentive systems. Our analytical results demonstrate how, by optimally weighting individual-level and workgroup-level incentives, managers can balance the need to induce cooperation and coordination among employees with the need to manage employees' incentive-related risk. Counter to conventional wisdom, we also demonstrate that both group and individual incentives are necessary to facilitate cooperative behaviors such as knowledge sharing in workgroups. Further, we empirically test some of the insights developed from the analytical models; our empirical findings support these analytical results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303 · Cited by 3,526
THE DYNAMIC NATURE OF CONFLICT: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF INTRAGROUP CONFLICT AND GROUP PERFORMANCE.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069453 · Cited by 2,487
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Cited by
Narayanan, S., Balasubramanian, S., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2009) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1057 · Cited by 244
Self-citationSeeing the Bigger Picture? Ramping up Production with the Use of Augmented Reality
Wuttke, D., Upadhyay, A., Siemsen, E., & Wuttke-Linnemann, A. (2022) · Manufacturing & Service Operations Management · doi:10.1287/msom.2021.1070 · Cited by 36
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Siemsen, E., Balasubramanian, S., & Roth, A. V.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1533-1550
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2160018425
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 14.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.