More is not better: Two failures of incentive theory.

Korman, Abraham K.; Glickman, Albert S.; Frey, Robert

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.66.2.255

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Recommendations For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Nevertheless, attention needs to be directed toward identifying at what point increased commitment leads to detrimental affects. This perspective merely underscores the notion that "more is not necessarily better" (see Korman, Glickman, & Frey, 1981), and we should consider our charge as "managing commitment levels," Impact of Organizational Interventions on OC For the most part, studies of OC have adopted a correlational methodology; the influence of various organizational interventions on OC levels has received far less attention. In a goal-setting field experiment, Ivancevich and McMahon (1982) found that although goals per se had no direct influence on employees' OC, feedback did increase OC levels.…”

Section: Longitudinal Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

Mathieu¹,

Zajac²

1990

Psychological Bulletin

4,435

235

3,931

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we summarize previous empirical studies that examined antecedents, correlates, and/or consequences of organizational commitment using meta-analysis. In total, 48 metaanalyses were conducted, including 26 variables classified as antecedents, 8 as consequences, and 14 as correlates. Statistical artifacts were found to account for the variance between studies in only one meta-analysis that used attendance. Type of organizational commitment (attitudinal vs. calculative) was proposed as a moderator variable and was found to account for significant betweensludy variance in 9 of 18 comparisons. Theoretical and methodological issues pertaining to the measurement of various forms of organizational commitment, its interrelations with other forms of attachments, and its role in causal models of behavior in organizations are reviewed. Directions for future research are highlighted.We would like to thank Frank Landy, Jim Farr, Michael Frese, and two anonymous reviewers for their many helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this article.

show abstract

Section: Recommendations For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Longitudinal Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

Mathieu¹,

Zajac²

1990

Psychological Bulletin

4,435

235

3,931

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Campbell, 1952;Cassileth, 1969;Datel, 1970;Datel & Legters, 1971;DeLeo, 1972;Dockstader, Nebeker, Nocella, & Shumate, 1980;Dockstader, Nebeker, & Shumate, 1978;Evans, 1970;Galbraith & Cummings, 1967;Gavin, 1970;Graen, 1969;Guzzo, 1979;Hackman & Porter, 1968;Jorgenson, Dunnette, & Pritchard, 1973;Korman, Glickman, & Frey, 1981;Lawler, 1964;Lawler & Porter, 1967;Opsahl & Dunnette, 1966;Porter & Lawler, 1968;Pritchard, DeLeo, & von Bergen, 1974;Pritchard & Sanders, 1973;Wood, Hakel, Del Gaizo, & Klimoski, 1975). As with feedback and goal setting, the literature indicates that group-based incentive systems can also be effective (Bullock & Lawler, 1984;Geare, 1976;O'Dell, 1981O'Dell, , 1986Thierry, 1987.…”

Section: Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…There is also a large literature on the effectiveness of different types of incentive systems and the reasons why incentive systems are effective (Arvey, 1972; Atkinson, 1958; Atkinson & Reitman, 1956; H. Campbell, 1952; Cassileth, 1969; Datel, 1970; Datel & Legters, 1971; DeLeo, 1972; Dockstader, Nebeker, Nocella, & Shumate, 1980; Dockstader, Nebeker, & Shumate, 1978; Evans, 1970; Galbraith & Cummings, 1967; Gavin, 1970; Graen, 1969; Guzzo, 1979; Hackman & Porter, 1968; Jorgenson, Dunnette, & Pritchard, 1973; Korman, Glickman, & Frey, 1981; Lawler, 1964; Lawler & Porter, 1967; Opsahl & Dunnette, 1966; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Pritchard, DeLeo, & von Bergen, 1974; Pritchard & Sanders, 1973; Wood, Hakel, Del Gaizo, & Klimoski, 1975).…”

Section: Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity.

Pritchard

Jones²,

Roth³

et al. 1988

Journal of Applied Psychology

291

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While industrial and organizational psychologists have been concerned about the national problem of increasing productivity, most research has focused on simple jobs with the individual as the unit of analysis. Most jobs are more complex and, because of the interdependencies in the work, require group-level interventions and more complex measures of performance or productivity. This research presents a new method of measuring productivity, the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES), and uses measures from this approach as a foundation for group-based feedback, goal setting, and incentives. The experimental design consisted of a baseline period of 8 to 9 months, followed by a 5-month period of feedback based on the ProMES. Goal setting was then added to feedback for 5 months. Finally, incentives in the form of time off from work were added to feedback and goal setting for another 5 months. Results indicated that group-level feedback increased productivity an average of 50% over baseline, group goal setting increased productivity 75% over baseline, and group incentives increased productivity 76% over baseline. Control group data showed no or only a slight increase in productivity over the same period, and level of personnel either stayed the same or decreased. In addition, work attitudes such as job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and morale were as good or better following the interventions. Issues pertaining to group-based interventions are discussed.

show abstract

“…This conclusion is analogous to the findings in operant conditioning literature that variable schedules of reinforcements generate more behavioral responses that are more difficult to extinguish (Ferster & Skinner, 1957; Skinner, 1957/1972). Moreover, several documented reasons explain why organisms' willingness to exert effort in a task may be nonmonotonically related to rewards or reinforcements (Duncan & Fantino, 1972; Killeen, 1982; Korman, Glickman, & Frey, 1981; Miller, Barnet, & Grahame, 1995; see also Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Our research extends some of these principles to human behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resting on laurels: The effects of discrete progress markers as subgoals on task performance and preferences.

Amir¹,

Ariely²

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People are especially efficient in processing certain visual stimuli such as human faces or good configurations. It has been suggested that topology and geometry play important roles in configural perception. Visual search is one area in which configurality seems to matter. When either of 2 target features leads to a correct response and the sequence includes trials in which either or both targets are present, the result is a redundant-target paradigm. It is common for such experiments to find faster performance with the double target than with either alone, something that is difficult to explain with ordinary serial models. This redundant-targets study uses figures that can be dissimilar in their topology and geometry and manipulates the stimulus set and the stimulus-response assignments. The authors found that the combination of higher order similarity (e.g., topological) among the features in the stimulus set and response assignment can effectively overpower or facilitate the redundant-target effect, depending on the exact nature of the former characteristics. Several reasonable models of redundant-targets performance are falsified. Parallel models with the potential for channel interactions are supported by the data.Keywords redundant-target effect; similarity; systems factorial technology; configural; topology People detect more quickly, and more accurately, a left parenthesis, when presented within a certain context, "( )," than when presented alone, "(" (Pomerantz, Sager, & Stoever, 1977;Pomerantz et al., 2003). Similarly, people seem to better identify a nose, within the context of a face, than when the nose is presented alone (Tanaka & Farah, 1993, 2003Tanaka & Sengco, 1997). 1 This kind of result is counterintuitive from certain basic perspectives, given that context adds more details to the display and therefore distracts attention and/or increases processing load as well as possibly masking the target. Also, in many such studies context is controlled such that by itself it provides no information with respect to the required response. Nonetheless, people exhibit better performance in the Correspondence concerning this article should be addresses to Ami Eidels, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: aeidels@indiana.edu. Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/XXXXXXX.supp 1 Salutary effects of context were observed in many other cases, such as the recognition of a letter within the context of a word (Reicher, 1969) or the recognition of a target object preceded by the context of an appropriate scene (Palmer, 1975 presence of certain contexts than with other contexts or with less context. What is so special about these facilitating contexts? What is special about faces and good figures that aids in their processing? According to one view, highly symmetrical (i.e., good) or highly learned (faces) figures are processed as gestalts, that is, as unified wholes (Garner, 1974;Palmer, 1999). Another related v...

show abstract

More is not better: Two failures of incentive theory.

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity.

Resting on laurels: The effects of discrete progress markers as subgoals on task performance and preferences.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About