Despite the limited incentives they provide for idiosyncratic investment, temporary work arrangements are becoming increasingly common. Using evidence from a field experiment conducted among salespeople in a Kenyan insurance firm, this paper examines the consequences of providing job training for temporary workers. The findings show that providing access to training significantly increases firm revenue, primarily due to performance increases among higher‐ability workers. The findings from the study are consistent with temporary workers willingness to invest in job training when the job‐specific returns from doing so are sufficiently high.

Credible monitoring of remote workers presents unique challenges that may reduce the benefits of formal organization for their management. We consider whether increasing the salience of monitor productivity without changing incentive contracts or monitoring technology leads to changes in remote worker performance. Results from a field experiment run among multidimensional task workers in Kenya demonstrate that increasing the visibility of monitor activity improves performance on task dimensions not being directly paid for. Our evidence is consistent with the importance of conspicuous monitoring when managers and workers are not co-located.

Using a series of laboratory experiments in the context of bilateral bargaining over whether and how to engage in a joint venture, this paper shows that fairness concerns result in failures to undertake profitable joint production opportunities. We find that framing an opportunity as an employment relationship rather than as a partnership significantly reduces these inefficiencies and increases subjects' welfare. Consistent with the theoretical model developed in the paper, text analysis and a follow-up experiment demonstrate that the lower likelihood of an efficient outcome in the partnership frame is driven primarily by a concern for fairness generated by the perceived social relationship associated with partnerships, and not by differences in the economic structure, cognition, subject motivation, or changes in relative bargaining power.

Workers trained in STEM are generally viewed as essential for innovation-led economic growth. Yet, recent statistics suggest that a majority of STEM undergraduates do not go on to pursue innovation-focused careers in their fields of study. We investigate whether STEM students who do not self-select into innovative tasks are doing so because they are less capable than their peers who do. We find that monetary inducement among STEM students increases aggregate innovative output, but that low-GPA students who were induced significantly underperform relative to low-GPA students who self-selected; however, induced and self-selected high-GPA students perform statistically the same. In contrast, words of encouragement appears to benefit those students with the lowest GPAs. Our results highlight the value of efforts to increase the pool of STEM students who pursue innovative careers and underscore the importance of interventions targeted at specific student subgroups to maximize the returns on those efforts.

Digitization has facilitated the proliferation of crowd science by lowering the cost of finding individuals with the willingness to participate in science without pay. However, the factors that influence participation and the outcomes of voluntary participation are unclear. We report two findings from a field experiment on the world’s largest crowd science platform that tests how voluntary contributions to science are affected by providing clarifying information on either the desired outcome of a scientific task or the labor requirements for completing the task. First, there is significant heterogeneity in the motivations and ability of contributors to crowd science. Second, both of the information interventions lead to significant decreases in the quantity and increases in the quality of contributions. Combined, our findings are consistent with the information interventions improving match quality between the task and the volunteer. Our findings suggest that science can be democratized by engaging individuals with varying skill levels and motivations with small changes in the information provided to participants.