Search results

Forecasting processes in organizational settings largely rely on human judgment, which makes it important to examine ways to improve the accuracy of these judgmental forecasts. The purpose of this paper is to test the effect of providing relative performance feedback on judgmental forecasting accuracy.

This paper is based on a controlled laboratory experiment.

The authors show that feedback that ranks the forecasting performance of participants improves their accuracy compared with the forecasting accuracy of participants who do not get such feedback. The authors also find that the effectiveness of such relative performance feedback depends on the content of the feedback information as well as on whether accurate forecasting performance is linked to additional financial rewards. Relative performance feedback becomes more effective when subjects are told they rank behind other participants than when they are told they rank higher than other participants. This finding is consistent with loss aversion: low-ranked individuals view their performance as a loss and work harder to avoid it. By contrast, top performers tend to slack off. Finally, the authors find that the addition of monetary rewards for top performers reduces the effectiveness of relative performance feedback, particularly for individuals whose performance ranks near the bottom.

One way to improve forecasting accuracy when forecasts rely on human judgment is to design an effective incentive system. Despite the crucial role of judgmental forecasts in organizations, little attention has been devoted to this topic. The aim of this study is to add to the literature in this field.

This paper provides an overview of the empirical findings on how relative performance information (RPI) affects employee behavior. Additionally, the review identifies future research opportunities based on a systematic analysis of the literature that incorporates findings across several disciplines and provides replicable, extensive coverage.

This paper addresses a research gap via synthesis, drawing on the empirical literature identified and analyzed systematically. A conceptual framework is developed to integrate the studies.

The effect of RPI on performance through enhanced effort is positive; moreover, publicity and performance-dependent compensation strengthen the effect. However, RPI has also been found to increase sabotage among employees, and it can lead to less honest reporting. Future research could examine critical mediators and moderators of the RPI-performance relationship and thus complement the findings. Additionally, the effects of group-based RPI remain underrepresented. Future work could help to assess in greater detail how RPI interacts with culture and norms and whether RPI is due to personal expectations. There is also room for further research regarding the effects of RPI on cooperation, its consequences for learning, how it affects budgeting decisions and its implications for risk taking.

This paper presents the first literature review in the field of RPI. It provides synthesized knowledge about whether RPI is beneficial or detrimental to organizational performance.

Firms use Relative Performance Information (RPI) to improve employee performance; however, differences in employees’ remote work environments call into question whether RPI improves performance in remote work arrangements. By manipulating RPI provision across sections, the authors examine whether RPI improves performance in remote work arrangements using a field experiment in introductory accounting courses taught during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors found that RPI improves performance in a remote work setting, as students receiving RPI achieved higher exam scores and increased their exam scores to a greater extent than students who did not receive RPI. The authors also found that lower performers improved performance more than higher performers in response to RPI, and the effect of RPI was more pronounced in those closest to meaningful thresholds. These results inform practice on the expected benefits of implementing RPI in a remote work setting.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effects of varying motivation induced by financial incentives and common uncertainty caused by time pressure on audit judgment performance.

The experimental method is used to examine how financial incentives and time pressure affect audit performance, based on predictions by both economic and behavioral theories. The relative performance contract and the profit sharing contract are two incentive schemes considered. To achieve the incentive effect on subjects when conducting the experiment, all subjects were compensated with real cash rewards, according to their incentive contracts as randomly assigned.

As predicted, major results show that both incentive contract and time pressure affect audit judgment performance. The audit performance is generally better under the relative performance contract than under the profit sharing contract. Additionally, it is demonstrated that an increase in the level of time pressure significantly improves recall, recognition, and total efficiency under both types of incentive contracts, but impairs recall and total performance, particularly under the relative performance contract. Moreover, the reduction of recall and total performance under the relative performance contract is significantly greater than under the profit sharing contract. Nevertheless, in this case, the relative performance contract still outperforms the profit sharing contract.

The findings suggest the relative superiority of the relative performance contract in comparison with the profit sharing contract in improving auditors' judgment performance for structured tasks.

The relative performance contract would motivate junior auditors to exert more effort to increase their performance in the work environment of increased time pressure. The audit firms may incorporate relative performance evaluations into incentive schemes, to improve junior auditors' performance for structured tasks.

The paper is of value to audit firms in the design of performance‐contingent incentive contracts.

To inform research on source credibility by providing insight into investors' perception and use of common information sources.

In total, 235 individuals with investing experience or intent ranked the perceived credibility of nine common sources that report unaudited corporate earnings estimates and nine sources of non‐financial performance measures. Respondents also assessed the relative value of source credibility to their investment decisions and indicated which common sources of information they use when investing.

Results indicate no significant differences in the rankings between more and less experienced investors. Respondents seemed to impute accountability or independence to certain sources without warrant. Source credibility was less valued in the non‐financial performance measurement context than in the earnings estimate setting. A surprisingly low proportion of investors reported using the auditor's report and financial statement notes in combination with financial statement data.

Theory can usefully be expanded to address investors' assumptions about source accountability or independence and the data context's effect on the relative value of source credibility. Using US‐based participants potentially limits the ability to generalise results. More extensive lists of sources may refine the observed differences.

Results suggest that investors should question their assumptions about a source's typical behaviour. Similarly, financial reporting professionals may need to promote more heavily the value of credible sources of non‐financial performance measures while reminding investors of the importance of common financial reporting vehicles.

In addition to providing investor feedback on source credibility, this paper reveals areas for theory to address and raises questions for further performance measurement research.

This paper is a study of how people with heterogonous individual characteristics self-select into different compensation schemes. A laboratory experiment is designed in which “workers” can join “companies” that pay according to various schemes: piece rate, revenue sharing, individual tournament, and team tournament. The main findings are: (1) Subjects with high relative performance always prefer individual tournament. (2) Risk-averse subjects are less likely to choose competitive schemes. (3) Individual tournament attracts fewer women than men, which is partially explained by gender-specific social preferences. (4) Compared to people with siblings, only children are less likely to accept any team-based schemes without information about their teammates. (5) The provision of feedback about relative performance can adjust individuals’ biased self-beliefs and then influence their self-selections.

In this empirical study, the primary aim is to examine whether the type of feedback provided, relative performance information (RPI) vs outcome, affects individual's task satisfaction in a context without financial incentives. A secondary objective is to explore whether differences in individuals' task satisfaction were associated with their performance level.

Participants completed a mundane, effort-based task in a 1 × 2 between-subjects experimental design where the type of feedback was manipulated at two levels (RPI vs outcome).

The results revealed a positive link between providing RPI feedback to individuals and their self-reported task satisfaction compared to individuals provided with outcome feedback. We find that individuals' task satisfaction is not associated with their task performance, supporting our prediction that the level of knowledge of results affects individuals' task satisfaction.

The experimental task used in this study was mundane and effort intensive. Consequently, future research may be needed to examine whether the results generalize to more creative, less effort-intensive tasks. This study also utilized student participants as a proxy for employees, which is appropriate for the task, but may not generalize to organizational settings requiring specialized knowledge or task experience.

The findings suggest that organizations may find providing employees with RPI to be a relatively low-cost, non-financial incentive for improving employee task satisfaction, a construct documented to reduce employee turnover and absenteeism.

While prior research focuses on the effects of providing RPI on individuals' performance and effort, this study extends prior research to individuals' task satisfaction, an affective construct, illustrating that RPI is multi-dimensional. Our results also have implications for theory. We extend the feedback proposition of the widely applied Job Characteristics Model (JCM) by illustrating the type of feedback provided to individuals has task satisfaction effects beyond those associated with the mere presence of feedback.

Relative performance evaluation (RPE) is a widely practiced employee appraisal process in the services industry. In a global delivery model, teams are spread across different geographical locations. The team members work on various tasks under the guidance of different managers and at times under more than one manager for performing the same task. Such complexities make RPE of the team members quite challenging. The paper proposes a methodical step-by-step approach to simplify the evaluation process without compromising on the rigour.

RPE has followed three different approaches. First is the traditional way, wherein evaluators had a common meeting to discuss and arrive at relative evaluation and ranking of members of the peer group employees. In the second, the number of evaluators and employees in a peer group were split in to 2 subgroups. The evaluators provided independent ratings and rankings. Simple mathematical tool then derived the combined ranking. In the third approach, each evaluator evaluated each employee in the peer group and provided the relative ranking for each employee. Again, mathematical tools provided the final ranking considering inputs from all evaluators. All the three evaluation approaches were analysed through an inter-rater agreement method.

All the three approaches for evaluation provided similar results giving confidence that less time-consuming methods could be adopted by evaluators without compromising on the rigour of the evaluation. The outcome of the exercise proved effective as the complaints reaching the ombudsmen reduced as compared to the earlier years. Considerable evaluation time was also saved. The study described in this paper is carried out in a non-unionized, Indian private sector services firm. Its effectiveness in other set ups is yet to be tested.

The research is carried out in the Indian Engineering services firm operating in the Knowledge based sector. Though study results are encouraging, the adaptability of methodology across different sectors and geographies is yet to be tested. More broad based studies are needed to evaluate suitability across firms and regions.

Relative evaluation exercise is challenging for evaluators. Although openness in evaluation is desired, it also makes evaluators uncomfortable in appearing to be taking sides or being opposing a candidate's ranking. The proposed approach brings in anonymity to each evaluator without scarifying individual evaluation.

The proposed methodology can be deployed across different services industries as the proposed methodology is business domain agnostic. It can be easily ported and tailored to align with an individual organization's evaluation philosophy. The suitability and effectiveness of the method can be studied under various types of firms like manufacturing, private, public, NGO, labour oriented, etc. As the proposed method reduces efforts, the stake holders can focus on understanding the relation between employee performance measurement, employee engagement, and long-term outcomes related to employee performance evaluation.

The proposed employee evaluation method leverages inter-rater reliability and agreement tool as a consensus approach to the relative performance ranking exercise. Such an approach to relative performance ranking is original as no prior studies with such an approach are found in the existing Literature.

Relative performance evaluation (RPE) is a widely studied topic in the theoretical and analytical accounting and economics literatures. The empirical literature also addresses this topic, with its main focus on executive compensation. This paper aims to extend the findings of the literature by assessing the extent to which RPE is used at lower organisational levels.

This study uses a purpose-developed survey to gather data from 325 business unit managers.

This study finds that RPE is used to a great extent in the performance evaluation of business unit managers. Additionally, the findings suggest that RPE use increases the informativeness of the performance evaluation through noise reduction. Noise in the performance evaluation is described in literature as the primary antecedent of RPE, but prior research provides only weak empirical support for this claim.

This study hypothesises a causal relation between RPE and noise in performance evaluation. However, the use of cross-sectional survey data only allows testing associations, not causations.

The originality and value of the paper lie in the focus on the business unit level and the use of survey data, which are almost completely absent in this area of research that almost exclusively uses archival data at the executive level.

In traditional importance‐performance analysis, self‐reported relative importance weights and “own” brand performance ratings are combined to yield assessments of current market standing. Discusses the pressing need for comparatives to avoid major problems in brand performance assessments within traditional importance‐performance analysis. These comparatives ideally include performance assessments of competitors′ brands, although several other possibilities exist: norms provided by “own” brand past performance, comparison to an “ideal brand”, and segment comparisons.