Measuring Indirect Effects of Unfair Employer Behavior on Worker Productivity - A Field Experiment

Heinz, Matthias; Jeworrek, Sabrina; Mertins, Vanessa; Schumacher, Heiner; Sutter, Matthias

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3107486

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, with some exceptions (for a review, see Galizzi & Navarro-Martinez, 2019), empirical evidence supports the external validity of these paradigms. Indeed, prior research has found comparable amounts of cooperation in economic games and outside of the lab, such as charity donations (Benz & Meier, 2008), social engagement as indicated in applicants' resumes (Heinz et al, 2018), returning misdirected letters (Franzen & Pointner, 2013), and self-reported cooperative acts toward members of the community (Soler, 2012).…”

Section: A Methods To Measure Impersonal Cooperation: Economic Gamesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Cultural Variation in Cooperation: A Meta-Analysis

Spadaro¹,

Graf²,

Jin³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impersonal cooperation among strangers enables societies to create valuable public goods, such as infrastructure, public services, and democracy. Several factors have been proposed to explain variation in impersonal cooperation across societies, referring to institutions (e.g., rule of law), religion (e.g., belief in God as a third-party punisher), cultural beliefs (e.g., trust) and values (e.g., collectivism), and ecology (e.g., relational mobility). We tested 17 pre-registered hypotheses in a meta-analysis of 1,506 studies of impersonal cooperation in social dilemmas (e.g., the Public Goods Game) conducted across 70 societies (k = 2,271), where people make costly decisions to cooperate among strangers. After controlling for 10 study characteristics that can affect the outcome of studies, we found very little cross-societal variation in impersonal cooperation. Categorizing societies into cultural groups explained no variance in cooperation. Similarly, cultural, ancestral, and linguistic distance between societies explained little variance in cooperation. None of the cross-societal factors hypothesized to relate to impersonal cooperation explained variance in cooperation across societies. We replicated these conclusions when meta-analyzing 514 studies across 41 states and nine regions in the United States (k = 783). Thus, we observed that impersonal cooperation occurred in all societies – and to a similar degree across societies – suggesting that prior research may have overemphasized the magnitude of differences between modern societies in impersonal cooperation. We discuss the discrepancy between theory, past empirical research and the meta-analysis, address a limitation of experimental research on cooperation to study culture, and raise possible directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: A Methods To Measure Impersonal Cooperation: Economic Gamesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Cultural Variation in Cooperation: A Meta-Analysis

Spadaro¹,

Graf²,

Jin³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The evidence for indirect reciprocity in real world settings is mixed as well. Heinz et al (2017) find lower levels of productivity of participants in a field experiment after their colleagues have been treated…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

How Altruistic is Indirect Reciprocity? - Evidence from Gift-Exchange Games in the Lab

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Heinz et al. (2017) conducted a field experiment to examine how workers’ productivity is impacted by leaders’ unfair treatment of co‐workers. They used two work shifts as part of their experiment.…”

Section: Theory and Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They concluded that boss effects were large and significant, which they thought validated the fundamental role assigned to supervision and management in personnel economics and in the theory of the firm. Heinz et al (2017) conducted a field experiment to examine how workers' productivity is impacted by leaders' unfair treatment of co-workers. They used two work shifts as part of their experiment.…”

Section: Leadership and Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational leadership: How much does it matter?

Haile

2022

Brit J Industrial Rel

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I study the influence of leadership on organizational performance and worker wellbeing using data from the 2004 and 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Survey (WERS). Our most conservative estimates from fixed effects regressions on a panel of organizations reveal that virtuous leadership is significantly and positively linked to an upbeat assessment of organizational performance, and an increase in worker wellbeing. Specifically, the estimates reveal that an increase in leadership quality by one standard deviation increases organizational performance and worker job satisfaction by 0.27 and 0.73 standard deviations, respectively, while it leads to a fall in worker job anxiety by 0.13 standard deviations. The results support the hypothesis that good leadership is vital for the success of business, including worker wellbeing, which organizational policymakers ought to heed. There is a dearth of empirical evidence on organizational leadership as an institution and its influence on organizational outcomes, which this article aims to address.

show abstract

Measuring Indirect Effects of Unfair Employer Behavior on Worker Productivity - A Field Experiment

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Cross-Cultural Variation in Cooperation: A Meta-Analysis

Cross-Cultural Variation in Cooperation: A Meta-Analysis

How Altruistic is Indirect Reciprocity? - Evidence from Gift-Exchange Games in the Lab

Organizational leadership: How much does it matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About