Social Comparison on Multiple Tasks: Sacrificing Overall Performance for Local Excellence?

IF 4.9 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Journal of Accounting Research Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1111/1475-679X.12535
MAXIMILIAN KOHLER, MATTHIAS D. MAHLENDORF, MISCHA SEITER, TIMO VOGELSANG
{"title":"Social Comparison on Multiple Tasks: Sacrificing Overall Performance for Local Excellence?","authors":"MAXIMILIAN KOHLER,&nbsp;MATTHIAS D. MAHLENDORF,&nbsp;MISCHA SEITER,&nbsp;TIMO VOGELSANG","doi":"10.1111/1475-679X.12535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This field experiment investigates how different levels of aggregation in relative performance information (RPI) impact employee performance in environments with multiple tasks. We randomly assign store employees of a retail chain to three groups: RPI on overall performance (control group), RPI on separate tasks, and RPI on both overall performance and separate tasks. We do not find evidence that providing separate task RPI instead of overall RPI affects performance or effort allocation. However, providing RPI on both overall performance and separate tasks seems to reduce performance, especially in the low-return task. This suggests that detailed RPI directs employees’ attention to the smaller benefits of low-return tasks. We further find that only 30.5% of the employees accessed their performance reports, highlighting a distinction between providing RPI in the field and the laboratory. This study is based on a registered report accepted by the <i>Journal of Accounting Research</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":48414,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Accounting Research","volume":"62 4","pages":"1309-1361"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1475-679X.12535","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Accounting Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-679X.12535","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This field experiment investigates how different levels of aggregation in relative performance information (RPI) impact employee performance in environments with multiple tasks. We randomly assign store employees of a retail chain to three groups: RPI on overall performance (control group), RPI on separate tasks, and RPI on both overall performance and separate tasks. We do not find evidence that providing separate task RPI instead of overall RPI affects performance or effort allocation. However, providing RPI on both overall performance and separate tasks seems to reduce performance, especially in the low-return task. This suggests that detailed RPI directs employees’ attention to the smaller benefits of low-return tasks. We further find that only 30.5% of the employees accessed their performance reports, highlighting a distinction between providing RPI in the field and the laboratory. This study is based on a registered report accepted by the Journal of Accounting Research.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多重任务的社会比较:为局部卓越而牺牲整体表现?
本现场实验研究了相对绩效信息(RPI)的不同汇总水平如何影响员工在多任务环境中的绩效。我们将一家零售连锁店的员工随机分配到三组:相对绩效信息对总体绩效的影响(对照组)、相对绩效信息对单独任务的影响以及相对绩效信息对总体绩效和单独任务的影响。我们没有发现证据表明,提供单独任务 RPI 而不是总体 RPI 会影响绩效或精力分配。但是,同时提供总体成绩和单独任务的 RPI 似乎会降低成绩,尤其是在低回报任务中。这表明,详细的 RPI 会引导员工关注低回报任务中较小的收益。我们还发现,只有 30.5% 的员工查阅了他们的绩效报告,这突出表明了在现场和实验室提供 RPI 的区别。本研究基于《会计研究期刊》接受的注册报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Accounting Research
Journal of Accounting Research BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.80%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: The Journal of Accounting Research is a general-interest accounting journal. It publishes original research in all areas of accounting and related fields that utilizes tools from basic disciplines such as economics, statistics, psychology, and sociology. This research typically uses analytical, empirical archival, experimental, and field study methods and addresses economic questions, external and internal, in accounting, auditing, disclosure, financial reporting, taxation, and information as well as related fields such as corporate finance, investments, capital markets, law, contracting, and information economics.
期刊最新文献
Spillover Effects of the SEC's Regulatory Oversight on Private Debt Contracting: Evidence from Cross‐listed Foreign Firms Issue Information - TOC Issue Information - Request for Papers Issue Information - Standing Call for Proposals for Do Commercial Ties Influence ESG Ratings? Evidence from Moody's and S&P
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1