[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp16812.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multi-Rater Performance Evaluations and Incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Ockenfels, Axel

    (University of Cologne)

  • Sliwka, Dirk

    (University of Cologne)

  • Werner, Peter

    (Maastricht University)

Abstract
We compare evaluations of employee performance by individuals and groups of supervisors, analyzing a formal model and running a laboratory experiment. The model predicts that multi-rater evaluations are more precise than single-rater evaluations if groups rationally aggregate their signals about employee performance. Our controlled laboratory experiment confirms this prediction and finds evidence that this can indeed be attributed to accurate information processing in the group. Moreover, when employee compensation depends on evaluations, multi-rater evaluations tend to be associated with higher performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Ockenfels, Axel & Sliwka, Dirk & Werner, Peter, 2024. "Multi-Rater Performance Evaluations and Incentives," IZA Discussion Papers 16812, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp16812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp16812.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Letina, Igor & Liu, Shuo & Netzer, Nick, 2020. "Delegating performance evaluation," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.
    2. Kathrin Manthei & Dirk Sliwka, 2019. "Multitasking and Subjective Performance Evaluations: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment in a Bank," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5861-5883, December.
    3. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    4. Canice Prendergast, 1999. "The Provision of Incentives in Firms," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(1), pages 7-63, March.
    5. Marchegiani, Lucia & Reggiani, Tommaso & Rizzolli, Matteo, 2016. "Loss averse agents and lenient supervisors in performance appraisal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 183-197.
    6. Bentley W. MacLeod, 2003. "Optimal Contracting with Subjective Evaluation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 216-240, March.
    7. Jeffrey Carpenter & Andrea Robbett & Prottoy A. Akbar, 2018. "Profit Sharing and Peer Reporting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4261-4276, September.
    8. Gary Bolton & Ben Greiner & Axel Ockenfels, 2013. "Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 265-285, January.
    9. Nicolas Roux & Joel Sobel, 2015. "Group Polarization in a Model of Information Aggregation," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 202-232, November.
    10. George Baker & Robert Gibbons & Kevin J. Murphy, 1994. "Subjective Performance Measures in Optimal Incentive Contracts," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(4), pages 1125-1156.
    11. Jeffrey Carpenter & Peter Hans Matthews & John Schirm, 2010. "Tournaments and Office Politics: Evidence from a Real Effort Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 504-517, March.
    12. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    13. Patrick Kampkötter & Dirk Sliwka, 2016. "The Complementary Use of Experiments and Field Data to Evaluate Management Practices: The Case of Subjective Performance Evaluations," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 364-389, June.
    14. Angelovski, Andrej & Brandts, Jordi & Sola, Carles, 2016. "Hiring and escalation bias in subjective performance evaluations: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 114-129.
    15. Charles Bellemare & Alexander Sebald, 2018. "Self-Confidence and Reactions to Subjective Performance Evaluations," CESifo Working Paper Series 7325, CESifo.
    16. Alexander Sebald & Markus Walzl, 2014. "Subjective Performance Evaluations and Reciprocity in Principal–Agent Relations," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 116(2), pages 570-590, April.
    17. Grabner, Isabella & Künneke, Judith & Moers, Frank, 2020. "How calibration committees can mitigate performance evaluation bias: An analysis of implicit incentives," Department for Strategy and Innovation Working Paper Series 04/2020, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    18. Brice Corgnet, 2012. "Peer Evaluations And Team Performance: When Friends Do Worse Than Strangers," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(1), pages 171-181, January.
    19. Frederiksen, Anders & Lange, Fabian & Kriechel, Ben, 2017. "Subjective performance evaluations and employee careers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 408-429.
    20. Golman, Russell & Bhatia, Sudeep, 2012. "Performance evaluation inflation and compression," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 534-543.
    21. Gary Charness & Matthias Sutter, 2012. "Groups Make Better Self-Interested Decisions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 157-176, Summer.
    22. Axel Engellandt & Regina T. Riphahn, 2011. "Evidence on Incentive Effects of Subjective Performance Evaluations," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 64(2), pages 241-257, January.
    23. Axel Ockenfels & Dirk Sliwka & Peter Werner, 2015. "Bonus Payments and Reference Point Violations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1496-1513, July.
    24. Dannenberg, Astrid & Riechmann, Thomas & Sturm, Bodo & Vogt, Carsten, 2007. "Inequity Aversion and Individual Behavior in Public Good Games: An Experimental Investigation," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-034, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    25. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert H, 1996. "Favoritism in Organizations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 958-978, October.
    26. Moers, Frank, 2005. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation: the impact of diversity and subjectivity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 67-80, January.
    27. Gary E. Bolton & David J. Kusterer & Johannes Mans, 2019. "Inflated Reputations: Uncertainty, Leniency, and Moral Wiggle Room in Trader Feedback Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5371-5391, November.
    28. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    29. Friederike Mengel, 2021. "Gender Bias In Opinion Aggregation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(3), pages 1055-1080, August.
    30. Prendergast, Canice & Topel, Robert, 1993. "Discretion and bias in performance evaluation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(2-3), pages 355-365, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kusterer, David & Sliwka, Dirk, 2022. "Social Preferences and Rating Biases in Subjective Performance Evaluations," IZA Discussion Papers 15496, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Frederiksen, Anders & Lange, Fabian & Kriechel, Ben, 2017. "Subjective performance evaluations and employee careers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 408-429.
    3. Lucia Marchegiani & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2013. "Severity vs. Leniency Bias in Performance Appraisal: Experimental evidence," BEMPS - Bozen Economics & Management Paper Series BEMPS01, Faculty of Economics and Management at the Free University of Bozen.
    4. Marchegiani, Lucia & Reggiani, Tommaso & Rizzolli, Matteo, 2016. "Loss averse agents and lenient supervisors in performance appraisal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 183-197.
    5. Gary E. Bolton & David J. Kusterer & Johannes Mans, 2019. "Inflated Reputations: Uncertainty, Leniency, and Moral Wiggle Room in Trader Feedback Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5371-5391, November.
    6. Johannes Berger & Christine Harbring & Dirk Sliwka, 2013. "Performance Appraisals and the Impact of Forced Distribution--An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 54-68, June.
    7. Patrick Kampkötter & Dirk Sliwka, 2016. "The Complementary Use of Experiments and Field Data to Evaluate Management Practices: The Case of Subjective Performance Evaluations," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 364-389, June.
    8. Werner, Peter, 2024. "On common evaluation standards and the acceptance of wage inequality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 137-156.
    9. Kathrin Manthei & Dirk Sliwka, 2019. "Multitasking and Subjective Performance Evaluations: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment in a Bank," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(12), pages 5861-5883, December.
    10. Gary E. Bolton & David J. Kusterer & Johannes Mans, 2015. "Inflated reputations: Uncertainty, leniency & moral wiggle room in trader feedback systems," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 06-04, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences, revised 29 Jul 2016.
    11. Irene Trapp & Rouven Trapp, 2019. "The psychological effects of centrality bias: an experimental analysis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 155-189, March.
    12. B. William Demeré & Karen L. Sedatole & Alexander Woods, 2019. "The Role of Calibration Committees in Subjective Performance Evaluation Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1562-1585, April.
    13. Jurjen J.A. Kamphorst & Otto H. Swank, 2018. "The role of performance appraisals in motivating employees," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 251-269, June.
    14. Thuy-Van Tran & Sinikka Lepistö & Janne Järvinen, 2021. "The relationship between subjectivity in managerial performance evaluation and the three dimensions of justice perception," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 369-399, September.
    15. Angelovski, Andrej & Brandts, Jordi & Sola, Carles, 2016. "Hiring and escalation bias in subjective performance evaluations: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 114-129.
    16. Rizzolli, Matteo & Tremewan, James, 2018. "Hard labor in the lab: Deterrence, non-monetary sanctions, and severe procedures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 107-121.
    17. Juho Jokinen & Jaakko Pehkonen, 2021. "The role of personal and relative job performance in promotion decisions," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 35(4), pages 485-499, December.
    18. Marco Kleine & Sebastian Kube, 2015. "Communication and Trust in Principal-Team Relationships: Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2015_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    19. Uwe Jirjahn & Erik Poutsma, 2013. "The Use of Performance Appraisal Systems: Evidence from Dutch Establishment Data," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 801-828, October.
    20. Tim Hermans & Martine Cools & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2021. "The role of information accuracy and justification in bonus allocations," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 197-223, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    performance appraisal; calibration panels; group decision-making; real effort; incentives;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
    • M52 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp16812. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.