Paying for performance: Performance incentives increase desire for the reward object.

Hur, Julia D.; Nordgren, Loran F.

doi:10.1037/pspa0000059

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, situations of reward interdependence are likely to bring into people's awareness the question of how they can best ensure their future rewards. This theorizing is consistent with the findings of Hur and Nordgren (), who reported that performance incentives at work lead employees to think about money more.…”

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesessupporting

confidence: 92%

“…As an additional measure of instrumental and calculative thinking, we assessed the extent to which participants were fixated on money when they were making their choice. We did so by asking them two questions ( r = .91) adapted from existing research (Hur & Nordgren, ): “[When I was making a decision about who I wanted to work with] … I kept thinking about how much money I could potentially earn in the upcoming studies”; “… I was fixated on the compensation that I could potentially receive in the upcoming lab studies” (1 = strongly disagree , 7 = strongly agree ). Our three measures of instrumental and calculative thinking were only modestly correlated ( r instrumental/calculative = .43, r instrumental/fixation = .24, r calculative/fixation = .44, all p s < .01), but the results for each measure were virtually identical (see the Supporting Information) so for the sake of parsimony, we combined them into one composite (α = .84).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (Question 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of economic consequences on social judgment and choice: Reward interdependence and the preference for sociability versus competence

Belmi

Pfeffer

2018

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Competence and sociability (warmth) are fundamental dimensions of social judgment in organizations. However, these qualities are frequently seen as negatively related, with mixed evidence on which is more important. In three studies (N = 993), we investigated the effects of reward interdependence on the preference for sociability versus competence. We predicted that reward interdependence would elicit a more instrumental, calculative mindset, which in turn, would lead individuals to value competence more. Study 1 surveyed working adults who were in actual work groups and found that those who worked in more (vs. less) reward interdependent environments were more likely to think instrumentally and calculatively when considering potential colleagues. This mindset, in turn, was associated with a greater tendency to value competence over sociability. Studies 2 and 3 used an experimental design and found that when people imagined or anticipated working in a situation in which their economic outcomes depended in part on others, they were more likely to adopt an instrumental focus and choose a “competent jerk” over a “lovable fool.” These results call into question a vast social judgment literature that has made claims about the importance of sociability and related constructs without considering the context, and particularly the reward interdependence, often inherent in organizational contexts.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesessupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (Question 2)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of economic consequences on social judgment and choice: Reward interdependence and the preference for sociability versus competence

Belmi

Pfeffer

2018

J Organ Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas stronger moral identities predict less unethical behavior than weaker moral identities, the presence of situational cues can mitigate this effect, with those having stronger moral identities reacting more to situational cues because the recency and presumed continual reinforcement of the situational cue ''overrides" the moral identity (e.g., Aquino, Freeman, Reed, Lim, & Felps, 2009). Building on this prior work, we examined a situational moderator by testing whether financial incentives, which increase the desire for money (Hur & Nordgren, 2016), would mitigate the gender difference in negotiator ethics.…”

Section: Explaining When Gender Differences In Negotiator Ethics Emergementioning

confidence: 99%

A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity

Kennedy

Kray

2017

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tTo date, gender differences in ethics have received little theoretical attention. We utilize a socialcognitive framework to explain why these differences emerge and when women engage in less unethical negotiating behavior than do men. We propose that, relative to men's, women's stronger moral identities suppress unethical negotiating behavior. Study 1 establishes a gender difference in moral identity strength through a meta-analysis of over 19,000 people. Study 2 observes gender differences in two aspects of negotiator ethics -moral disengagement and opportunism. Study 3 establishes moral identity strength as an antecedent to negotiator ethics. Finally, Studies 4 and 5 explore financial incentives as a situational moderator. Because financial incentives temporarily decrease the salience of moral identity, they could mitigate gender differences in negotiator ethics, leading women to act more like men. Across both studies, financial incentives impacted women's (but not men's) unethical negotiating behavior. Our findings help to explain why and when gender differences in ethics emerge.

show abstract

“…PFP incentives also bring various risks. First, the implementation of PFP incentives can cause deviation from the attention to the outcomes towards the attention to reward objects while emphasising monetary rewards may lead to the desire for money rather than the desire for meeting goals (Hur and Nordgren, 2016). This deviation also hinders employees' intrinsic motivation because performance decreases significantly when the bonuses are removed later.…”

Section: Effects Of Pfp Incentives On Individual Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Myopia: The Effect of Pay-For-Performance Incentives on Exploration and Coordination

Králová¹,

Král²

2019

AOP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incentives are one of the core practices of strategic human resource management and their effect on motivation and performance has been studied extensively. Particular attention is devoted to pay-for-performance (PFP) incentives while research on the effect of PFP incentives on performance has produced contradictory results. More importantly, incentives are not an isolated process; the effect of incentives goes beyond individual or organisational performance because they affect an entire organisation. Although incentives are included in most organisational design frameworks, the effect of incentives on other organisational design components has been neglected. The study uses the organisational design framework to focus on neglected relations between incentives and other organisational design components. The purpose of the study is to explore what are the organisational design components and how they are influenced by PFP incentives. A case study research design was used. The data was collected in a small company in which the incentive system was changed to PFP incentives as a part of substantial changes in the organisational design. Data was collected through interviews with employees, supported by internal documentation and observation. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. In the case, the PFP incentives led to higher performance although the PFP incentives restricted the new exploratory strategy and harmed cooperation. The effect of the PFP incentives on exploration and cooperation was slow, and hardly visible, predominantly as a result of unintentionally deviated attention. The study points out that focusing solely on performance when designing incentive systems may be myopic because PFP incentives may have a detrimental effect on other organisational design components. Based on the results, the paper provides a set of suggestions to consider when implementing PFP incentives.

show abstract

Paying for performance: Performance incentives increase desire for the reward object.

Cited by 18 publications

References 92 publications

The effect of economic consequences on social judgment and choice: Reward interdependence and the preference for sociability versus competence

The effect of economic consequences on social judgment and choice: Reward interdependence and the preference for sociability versus competence

A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity

Performance Myopia: The Effect of Pay-For-Performance Incentives on Exploration and Coordination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About