We examine the relationship between confidence in own absolute performance and risk attitudes using two confidence elicitation procedures: self-reported (non-incentivised) confidence and an incentivised procedure that elicits the certainty equivalent of a bet based on performance. The former procedure reproduces the Bhardeasy effect^(underconfidence in easy tasks and overconfidence in hard tasks) found in a large number of studies using non-incentivised self-reports. The latter procedure produces general underconfidence, which is significantly reduced, but not eliminated when we filter out the effects of risk attitudes. Finally, we find that self-reported confidence correlates significantly with features of individual risk attitudes including parameters of individual probability weighting.

In this paper we provide first-hand evidence that leadership quality matters for the quality of healthcare provision, based on NHS England hospital trust data between 2010 and 2014. This is the first paper to study this relationship using individual leadership styles, namely, task-, relations-, change-and integrity-oriented, and for different metrics of quality of healthcare provision, including staff and patient satisfaction survey measures and clinical performance indicators. We find that task-oriented leadership has the strongest relationship with staff-rated hospital quality while change-oriented leadership relates most to patient satisfaction and the clinical measure. We also find some evidence that organizational autonomy and competition across hospitals moderates the effect of leadership quality on healthcare quality. Overall, our results indicate that ideal healthcare leaders should behave as integrated leaders and that leadership matters at all levels of organizational hierarchy. This has important policy implications for continued support for the development and funding of integrated leadership programs in healthcare.

Employees typically work on multiple tasks that require unrelated skills and abilities. While past research strongly supports that relative performance feedback influences employee performance and effort allocation, little is known about the effect of relative performance feedback on employee competitiveness. Using a lab experiment, we study and confirm a complementary feedback spillover effect—relative performance feedback in the first task positively affects competitiveness in the unrelated second task. Furthermore, we find that the effect operates jointly and independently through belief- and taste-altering mechanisms. The results have important implications for organizations to understand both the power and the limitations of using relative performance feedback as an intervention policy in the design of accounting, control, and reporting systems. JEL Classifications: C72; C91. Data Availability: Go to: https://doi.org/10.17029/654cbcca-6e02-4bb2-aff6-41607a2a23d5

No abstract