incentives,!motivation!and!perbritneylmyers.weebly.com/uploads/9/6/3/4/9634037/myers...!!!!!incentives,!motivation!and!performance!2!!...
TRANSCRIPT
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 1
How Monetary Incentives Can Affect Intrinsic Motivation and Performance when
the Complexity of the Task Increases
Britney Myers
James Madison University
AHRD 630
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 2
Introduction
Incentives and reward systems have been a part of everyday life for years and
years, so much so that the average person does not stop to think of their existence. People
will have a reason to work harder and perform better if they know a reward will be given
at the end (Pink, 2009). What if this is not always the case? What if these incentives that
are used on a daily basis are actually hurting intrinsic motivation and overall
performance? More and more studies are being conducted to investigate this
phenomenon, and increasingly these studies are showing that incentives are not always
the answer to increased motivation and performance (Bonner, Hastie, Sprinkle, & Young,
2000).
The purpose of this study is to show that monetary incentives are not always
successful motivators in increasing performance. It has been shown that incentives do
have positive results when certain tasks are involved; however, current research suggests
that the complexity of the task determines whether or not the incentive will work (Bonner
et al., 2000). Intrinsic motivation can be challenged when incentives are thrown into the
mix. Studies are now showing that reduced intrinsic motivation can ultimately hurt the
outcome of an employee’s work (Benabou & Tirole, 2003). Moreover, offering too much
of an incentive can have a de-motivating effect on performance. Does the level and
amount of incentive affect performance, effort and motivation?
This topic is worth investigating because monetary incentives are not just used
sporadically, but rather on a daily basis for many corporations, schools and even in
households around the United States. Economists, and some others, often used to think
that the way to increase a worker’s motivation to perform better and/or faster is to offer
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 3
some type of incentive to do so. To this point Camerer and Hogarth (1999) stated,
Economists presume that experimental subjects do not work for free and
work harder, more persistently, and more effectively, if they earn more
money for better performance. Psychologists believe that intrinsic
motivation is usually high enough to produce steady effort even in the
absence of financial rewards; and while more money might induce more
effort, the effort does not always improve performance, especially if good
performance requires subjects to induce spontaneously a principle of
rational choice or judgment. (p. 7)
Economists traditionally have studied extrinsic incentives and psychologists have
concerned themselves with intrinsic motivation, but more recently the two disciplines are
combining their collective research to try and figure out the exact nature of monetary
incentives and how they work (Camerer & Hogarth, 1999).
Although it is agreed that incentives do work for many tasks, it is important to also
realize that incentives may not always be productive the way they are supposed to be
(Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004). In many cases incentives can produce provide
counterproductive results. For example, the main goal of many companies is to make a
profit. In order to make a profit, organizations must maximize employee performance by
creating workplace environments that motivate employees (Nohria, Groysberg, & Lee,
2008). If incentives do not always work for all types of tasks the way they are supposed
to, then it’s important to try and figure out when they most often do and don’t work. By
doing this, companies can come up with alternative measures to better reach employees
and people in general for the instances where monetary incentives may not be productive.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 4
This is especially relative today since profit margins are down right now.
Research questions
For the purposes of this study, there are a couple of research questions that will be
investigated. First, are monetary incentives a successful motivator to complete tasks
beyond a certain level of complexity? This question helps cover the basis of incentives
and whether or not they should be used as a main mean of motivating a person. Second,
how do monetary incentives affect intrinsic motivation? This question will further look
into the importance of intrinsic motivation and how monetary incentives may undermine
it (Benabou & Tirole, 2003; Camerer & Hogarth, 1999; Frey & Jegen, 2001). Finally, do
monetary incentives always increase performance? Some studies suggest that incentives
can increase effort but don’t always result in increased performance (Bonner et al., 2000;
Rydval, 2003) and therefore this is also important to study whether and how often
incentives actually increase performance.
Hypothesis
There is one proposed hypothesis that has been made from the information gathered
from the referenced articles. Specifically looking at the research of Bonner et al. (1999)
which focuses on the level of complexity of a task, this study will closely look at how the
type of task given can affect whether or not an incentive will help performance or not.
Also, in Benabou and Tirole’s (2003) article, which ties intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
into incentives, they look at how all three inadvertently affect each other will also be a
key point in this study. Therefore, it’s hypothesized that: Higher levels of monetary
award for completing complex, cognitive tasks will be associated with, (a) lower
performance, and (b) a decrease in intrinsic motivation.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 5
Key Definitions:
Monetary incentives: Monetary incentives include those rewards that are offered in
conjunction with the assignment of a duty, in order to help motivate a person to put forth
their best work towards that duty. Incentives are seen as a reason for people to be
motivated; a way to control actions of people (Awasthi & Pratt, 1990). Many people have
the thought that without an incentive, a person will have no reason to want to work hard
and therefore will not perform to the best of their abilities. When incentives are the only
part taken into consideration when it comes to motivation, it ignores the fact that there is
another type of motivation that exists within a person, intrinsic motivation. This specific
variable, a monetary incentive, will be studied in order to try and further understand how
and why it affects the three other variables.
Complex task: Tasks are more complex when the level of skill that is required
increases, requiring more processing and attention (Bonner & Sprinkle, 2002). It’s hard
to define what exactly a “complex task” is, however there are certain requisites that help
constitute a task as more complex than another task. Some of these requisites include (but
are not limited to): (1) more cognitive thinking, (2) more processing, (3) memory
enhancement, (4) greater problem-solving efforts and (5) use of judgment (Bonner,
Hastie, et al., 2000). Meanwhile, tasks that include mechanical skill, repetitive, and/or
mindless steps are seen as less complex. It has been suggested by a number of studies that
the more complex a task is, the less likely an incentive will work (Bonner & Sprinkle,
2002; Bonner et al., 2000; Rydval, 2003). The type of task used will be taken into
consideration during each experiment.
Intrinsic Motivation: Motivation is seen as a reason to accomplish a task. There are
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 6
two types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic (Deci, 1975). For the purposes of this
study, intrinsic motivation will be addressed and the extrinsic motivator will be played as
monetary incentives.
Intrinsic motivation is different from extrinsic motivation in that the motivation to
do something comes within a person rather than from an external source. A person is
often intrinsically motivated when they already have some interest in the subject of the
job before it was assigned to them or when they have a desire to increase their knowledge
or skill set that will be required of them throughout that specific job (Camerer & Hogarth,
1999). People are also often intrinsically motivated to impress their peers and/or
superiors.
Performance: Motowildo (2003) defines job performance as the “total expected
value to the organization” that makes a difference to “organizational goal
accomplishment,” whether positively or negatively, based on an employee’s behavior.
For example, good performance is defined as a behavior that leads to a positive effect on
the organization. When a person is given a job, they are expected to finish that job to a
certain degree/level that is asked of them. For example, a person is said to have
performed well if they met the expectations that were presented and/or went beyond
those expectations. Incentives are assumed to help reach a higher level of performance,
but whether this is actually true for every case or not is what will be studied. Are there
certain types of tasks in which incentives won’t necessarily increase performance but
actually hinder it?
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 7
Literature Review
There are five theories that can directly relate to the purpose of this study. The first
three theories help describe the thinking and reasoning behind why incentives may help
motivation. These include the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), social-efficacy theory
(Bandura, 1975, 1977), and goal-setting theory (Bonner & Sprinkle, 2002). The last two
theories, motivational crowding (Frey & Jegen, 2001) and two-factor theory (Herzberg,
1974), help describe how incentives may not always work the way they are expected.
Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) also supports the study’s framework on the use
of rewards. Vroom argues that people will participate in tasks and behaviors that they
think will bring them personal gain. If a person is expected to put forth a certain amount
of effort with a certain level of performance in order to receive a certain level of reward
(that a person desires) then he or she has a reason to participate in that task. A person will
not put forth as much effort the in future tasks if they are disappointed in the reward
given to them after completion of the first task. It’s also necessary to point out that if you
offer a reward to a new employee, or your son or daughter, the very first time you ask
them to do a certain task, it’s more likely than not that they are going to expect that
reward every other time they do it (Benabou & Tirole, 2003). Again, this theory supports
the reliance and expectance of incentives.
The next theory differs a little bit from the former theory. Social learning theory,
also known as the social-cognitive theory, was developed by Albert Bandura (1977).
Bandura (1977) stated that when a person thinks and/or knows they can successfully
accomplish a task, they are more likely to put more effort and time into that task. Instead
of dealing with desired outcomes, this theory touches more on a person’s belief of what
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 8
they are capable of doing with the skill set they have (Bonner & Sprinkle, 2002).
Incentives are expected to especially be successful for those tasks for which a person has
a positive self-efficacy. Meanwhile, if you ask a person to perform a task they are not
equipped to do, and then add more weight (the reward) on them to get the task done, it
will just add more stress on the person and have a bigger chance for failure (Camerer &
Hogarth, 1999).
The goal-setting theory also revolves around motivation. It states that goals directly
affect how much effort a person puts into a job (Bonner & Sprinkle, 2002). It also
suggests that more specific, personal goals will lead to higher performance than vague or
the absent goals (Bonner & Sprinkle, 2002). There are three conceivable ways that the
goal-setting theory can relate to the effectiveness of incentives. Locke, Shaw, Saari, and
Latham (1981) proposed that people will more likely create a specific goal for a task
where an incentive is offered and that people will make that goal even more specific,
therefore put in more effort, for tasks that include incentives. They also proposed that
people are more likely to stay committed to the goal they created and therefore follow
through with the task given with increased effort on their part.
The motivation crowding theory states that rather than incentives increasing
performance and supply, they ultimately decrease supply because the incentive “crowds
out” intrinsic motivation (Frey & Jegen, 2001). In other words, if an incentive is put into
the equation of a task, then there tends to be no more room for intrinsic motivation
because the person is focused on getting to the prize at the end. This theory is key to this
study because it helps describe how incentives can have a negative rather than positive
effect on a person’s performance. It also points out how important intrinsic motivation is
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 9
in carrying out duties.
Fredrick Herzberg’s (1974) two-factor theory states that employee satisfaction
and dissatisfaction are tied to two different groups of objects. First, satisfaction of a job
deals more with motivators that are closer to the actual job and the duties it entails.
Second, the “hygiene” factors are seen as the factors that can dissatisfy an employee.
Hygiene factors can include company policies, job security, supervision and working
conditions (Herzberg, 1974). One problem that arises is when a company expects
employees to work harder and be more motivated because a specific hygiene factor is
fixed. In other words, companies expect employees to be more motivated because a
problem was solved that was causing employee dissatisfaction. Companies need to
realize that motivation is a separate piece- personal growth and the challenges a task
offers a person is what motivates an employee and keeps them interested in their job, and
maintains the employee’s overall happiness.
According to Herzberg’s theory, incentives may not be the answer to get a person
motivated. His theory suggests that the type of tasks themselves and how much they
challenge a person deems more important to a person and therefore hold to be better
motivators. Herzberg (1974) also suggests that how well a person is praised and if the
task rewards that employee personal growth or not are deemed better motivators as well.
The two-factor theory does not suggest that incentives should never be used to help
motivate a person, but that incentives should not be the only tool used to motivate
(Herzberg, 1974).
Seminal Works
Bonner et al. (2000) analyzed 131 studies dealing with incentives and performance.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 10
Their variables included the requisite skill level of the person, the complexity of the task
and the type of incentive. They concluded from their studies that incentives are shown to
work when it comes to tasks dealing with little or no required skill, such as correcting a
paper. When the task requires more skill, such as problem solving or memory, the
success of incentives dramatically decrease or cause no effect on performance at all. The
authors pointed out that incentives do indeed work for many kinds of tasks, but that the
more complex skill a task requires, the less likely the incentive will work properly. This
study looks at similar variables from the study done by Bonner et al. in 2000, but gives
less attention to a person’s skill level.
Bonner and Sprinkle (2002) research other studies that deal with motivation,
incentives and performance. They carefully point out that although many readings state
that incentives can increase motivation and therefore performance increases, many of
these studies do not bother to talk about how they increase motivation and/or
performance on separate levels and whether one causes the other. In order to figure out
why incentives may or may not work, it needs to be known how they work in the first
place.
Benabou and Tirole (2003) directly talk about intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic
motivation, and how incentives affect both. Not only will people expect an incentive
every time thereafter they are given a similar task, but each time they perform that job, or
one similar to it, their intrinsic motivation decreases. It will especially decrease if a
reward is not offered in the future. This is due to the fact that more often than not, when
an incentive is introduced as part of a responsibility given, the attention of that person
shifts towards the end reward, rather than the task at hand (Benabou & Tirole, 2003).
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 11
Research shows that intrinsic motivation is important and that you do not want to
get rid of it (Benabou & Tirole, 2003; Bonner & Sprinkle, 2002). People start to feel
devalued and begin to solely work to achieve the award rather than try and work hard for
themselves. It is also suggested that feedback should be valued more than incentives
because it provides people with tangible ideas of how to improve their work and where
they are already doing well (Johnson & Dickinson, 2010).
According to Nohria et al. (2008), fulfilling all four basic needs of human beings
is the best motivator for employees. The four basic drives of humans include the drive to
acquire, the drive to bond, the drive to comprehend and the drive to defend. Their
research showed that satisfying all four of these drives at the same time, and not just one
here and there, provides the greatest motivation. The first two ways to addressing all four
drives are to provide a structured reward system and to create a collaborative and open
atmosphere in which employees feel comfortable with their coworkers. The second two
ways are to provide jobs in which an employee feels as though their work is contributing
to the company and is not meaningless and to show that the organization treats all
employees fairly and is trustworthy place for open communication. The two studies the
authors did showed that covering all four drives is the key to successful motivation.
Clearly reward systems, which can give incentives, are a part of motivation, but it’s
important to remember it is not everything. Incentives should not be the only tool used to
motivate people.
Camerer and Hogarth (1999) researched 74 studies in which experiments were
done to see how incentives affected performance. There was no set conclusion that
Camerer and Hogarth were able to reach except that intrinsic motivation and a person’s
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 12
capability to do the task seem to affect how well incentives work or not. Leuven,
Oosterbeek, and Klaauw (2010) found similar results in their study. Their study consisted
of breaking 294 first-year student participants into three groups where one group received
a large reward if they passed all the requirements of their first-year program, another
group received a smaller reward, and a third group would not receive an award at all.
Their findings were also small and insignificant in the numbers in all but one area.
Leuven et al. (2010) found that “high-performance” students performed better in their
grades and finishing the task if offered a larger reward. Meanwhile “low-performance”
students did worse when the higher the reward was offered.
Studies that are tangentially related
Awasthi and Pratt (1990) studied the effects of incentives on time spent on task as
well as effect of incentives on performance. The results concluded that for all participants
from the experimental group that received an extra incentive, they spent significantly
more time on each task compared to those participants who received the $1 that was
offered to every participant. Their experiment also concluded that there was no increase
for those participants who spent more time on each task. This study, among others, points
out that even though effort can be increased through incentives it does not mean
performance will increase; they are not always directly related.
Out of the seven job satisfaction-job performance relationship models (Judge,
Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001), number five and seven are the ones found most
commonly in studies. Specifically model number five (shown below) can be related back
to incentives and intrinsic motivation. Model five shows that the relationship between job
performance and job satisfaction is “moderated by other variables” (Judge et al., 2001, p.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 13
379). To go along with the pay-for-performance hypothesis, many assume that the third
variable in model number five that will cause an increase in both job satisfaction and
performance are incentives (Judge et al., 2001; cite other sources). As Judge et al. (2001)
researched, Jurgensen (1978) also found in his study that employees value intrinsic
motivation over pay. This model five will be used in the experiment as a base to see
whether or not monetary incentives are in fact a variable in job performance and if they
are, to what extent they have an effect. This model will also be used to help decide
whether or not job complexity is a factor in job performance and satisfaction.
Research gap this study is to fill
This study will closely at how monetary incentives affect intrinsic motivation as
well as performance. One of the determining factors that has been said to affect whether
or not incentives work is the complexity of the task, and this will be looked at as well.
Looking at motivation, performance, and adding different types of tasks into the mix will
further help along with the research about the phenomenon of incentives. It’s needed to
know how incentives work. Also, this study will look into whether or not incentives
should be used as often as they are or if other approaches, perhaps to increase intrinsic
motivation such as positive feedback, are more appropriate and successful in the long
run.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 14
This study will help contribute more information/findings about employee
motivation and incentives to increase performance. Monetary incentives are continuing to
be used today and it’s relative to figure out when and if they are appropriate for each and
every task. It’s important to know how to and what will help motivate people, especially
employees.
In this time of economic downturn, it would be good to know whether or not
monetary incentives are being wasted or are truly beneficial for a company’s overall
success and how each employee is contributing to that success. If continuing studies do in
fact find that there are other factors that are more important and beneficial towards
employee motivation, then it would save money as well as help increase employees’
well-being. Overall with the four variables in play, this study is geared to find more and
newer research about what really works best to help motivate people.
Research Design
Description
This study will be conducted on-campus at James Madison University. It will use a
primarily quantitative research design. A survey will be administered to all qualifying
students via email. This survey will include some open-ended questions to gather more
qualitative-like data. A true experimental study will also be developed to test an
experimental group who receives incentives and a control group who does not.
As stated earlier, there are three research questions for this study. These questions
include, (1) are monetary incentives a successful motivator to complete tasks beyond a
certain level of complexity?, (2) how do monetary incentives affect intrinsic motivation?,
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 15
and (3) do monetary incentives always increase performance? The survey will ask
questions to help understand personal feelings about motivation and how incentives
affect a student’s motivation. The experiment will target all three research questions but
will look more closely at how incentives affect performance.
Description of the sample
A nonrandom sampling technique, purposive sampling, will be used to gather
participants for this study. Any students who are in graduate school at James Madison
University, or have 60 or more credits can participate in the survey and/or experiment.
The reason that neither the survey nor the experiment will be open to all JMU students is
because this study is trying to look at the effects of incentives not just for students but for
people in the workplace as well. Students who are at junior standing or higher, especially
graduate students, are often more mature and are also more likely to have held a job so
they are a better target sample to be able to make possible inferences towards motivation
in the workplace.
Description of the data collection instruments
The two instruments that will be used for this study are a survey and an experiment.
The survey will be between 10 and 20 questions and will include mainly closed-ended
questions with a couple of open-ended questions. There is not a set time length on the
duration of the data collection from the survey. Data will continue to be collected until
there is a sufficient amount, at least 50 complete responses. A Likert-scale will be used
for the closed-ended questions. The survey will be administered through Qualtrics and
will be emailed to all students who fall in the sample description. The open-ended
questions will be coded using content analysis software. A sample of the survey is
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 16
located in Appendix B.
An initial email with the information about the experiment and its purpose will be
sent out via email to all qualifying JMU students. All students who are interested in
participating will be encouraged to email researcher confirming their participation. The
students will be informed that they will receive a monetary incentive of one dollar, but
they will not be told that additional incentives may be offered for the purposes of the
experiment. If the researcher does not get enough responses back before the date of the
experiment, the length of time for participants to sign-up will be extended.
The experiment itself will look similar to the one done by Awasthi and Pratt (1990)
as well as the study done by Leuven et al. (2010). It will differ from Awasthi and Pratt’s
(1990) experiment in that it will not be closed to only those students who are in a specific
program at the university. Rather it will be open to any qualifying students who are
willing to participate. The instruments that will be administered during the experiment
will come from measures that have been used in previous studies, such as Awasthi and
Pratt (1990) and Leuven et al. (2010). Although students who are to participate in this
experiment cannot be completely chosen at random, the way they will be grouped for the
actual experiment will be random. The participants will be randomly assigned to groups
before the experiment begins.
A randomized pretest-posttest control group design will be used. All participants
will receive the exact same pre and posttests. All participants will receive a monetary
incentive of one dollar at the beginning of the study, like in Awasthi and Pratt’s (1990)
study. The participants will then be split into three groups at random. One group will
receive no extra incentive, another group will have an opportunity to receive an extra
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 17
incentive for finishing the task and the third group will be offered an even bigger
incentive for completing the required task(s) (Leuven et al., 2010). None of the
participants will be told about the existence of other groups, only that they will receive a
small incentive, large incentive or no incentive for successfully completing the task. This
will be done so that results will not only show the difference between incentive and non-
incentive data but the varying degrees of incentives that can be offered.
The experiment will be administered at one time period. The total duration of the
experiment should last no longer than two hours. This includes time to take the pre and
post-tests as well as the actual main experimental test/task (rough estimate for now).
Description of the data analysis
A frequency distribution, as well as percentile ranks, will be used to help analyze
the data. A percentile rank will be used to calculate what percentage of each group of the
experiment falls below and above what is considered a “good” score on the experimental
test. The difference between the control and two experimental groups scores on the
test/task chosen will need be analyzed and compared. The percentage of correct and
incorrect answers between the three groups will need to be compared as well as the time
taken on the test. For the post-test, feedback will need to be compared across all three
groups. Also, the difference of answers between the pre and post-tests across all
participants needs to be analyzed as well as the difference of answers between the
experimental and control group. Meanwhile, the survey results will be tabulated and
coded before being analyzed.
A frequency polygon will also be used to interpret the results of the experiment. A
pie chart will also be made to show the comparison of scores between the control and the
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 18
group that received additional incentives throughout the experiment.
For the survey, both quantitative and qualitative data analysis tools will be used.
For the qualitative questions, a specific content analysis software will be used to help
code and compare answers across each individual participant. This will help find trends
and patterns among answers about motivation. Qualtrics survey software will be used to
help analyze the quantitative data from the Likert-scale questions as well as the
demographical questions.
Threats and Limitations
There are some threats to validity to both data collection instruments. Subject
characteristics might be a concern since neither the survey nor the experiment is designed
to reach a certain group beyond being a JMU upper classman. Since the tests for the
experiment are being used from existing instruments, there is less of a threat to
instrumentation validity since they have been used in other credible studies.
The researcher will be designing the survey so validity for this instrument is more
of a threat. Faculty members in the department who are familiar with the study being
done will look over the tests and survey to help decrease the threat to validity. The same
survey will be distributed to all qualifying students to help ensure reliability.
To help enhance reliability of the experiment, all three tests that will be given will
Percentage of test scores over 85%
Non-‐incentive group
Incentive Group
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 19
be the same for all participants, no matter if they are in the control or experimental group.
Since this study is aimed at gathering a more “mature” sample, the hopes are to be able to
make generalizations towards how incentives affect people outside of college as well,
such as the workplace. Although both the experiment and survey will only be offered to
JMU students, who reside in Harrisonburg, VA, to complete, many students that attend
JMU permanently live in other areas outside of Harrisonburg. This will help
generalizability since the target audience will have worked in areas along the East coast
and possibly across the country.
The limitations for the experiment include how many people actually complete the
survey as well as how many people are gathered to participate in the experiment. The
minimum of completed surveys that is expected is 50. If minimum requirements are not
met, then the survey may be opened to lower classmen as well to ensure a sufficient
amount of data is collected. The survey may also be redistributed at another time to
gather more survey participants.
A possible limitation for the experiment may include little or no volunteers. If not
enough students respond back to the research with a confirmation of their participation in
the research, then the date of the experiment will be extended to a later date to allow
more time to gather more participants. If the researcher still has not gathered enough
participants at that time then the plan is to have teachers offer an extra incentive (e.g.:
extra credit) for students who volunteer to participate. This, however, would lead to a
nonrandom sample of participants. This may also affect the outcome of the data, and pose
as an extraneous variable, if the students who volunteered are offered an additional
incentive, however it would help provide a sufficient amount of participants to help
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 20
gather enough data to analyze.
Justification of the statistical techniques and methods of analysis
The survey will reach more students and collect data on people’s feelings about
incentives. It will ask a variety of questions about how they feel about incentives, and
more specifically how they feel about incentives for certain tasks. The experiment will
actually test to see how incentives can affect a person’s performance. It will not only test
the effects of an incentive being present or not, but the degrees to level of incentive
offered (small vs. large). The pre and post-test will also go over motivational information
as well. Having two instruments for data collection will ensure that all of the variables are
covered and at different levels.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 21
References
Awasthi, V. & Pratt, J. (1990). The effects of monetary incentives on effort and decision
performance: The role of cognitive characteristics. The Accounting Review, 65,
797-811.
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Review of
Economic Studies, 70(244), 489-520. doi:10.1111/1467-937X.00253.
Bonner, S., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., & Young, S. M. (1996). A review of the effects of
financial incentives on performance in laboratory tasks: Implications for
management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 19-64.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Bonner, S. E., & Sprinkle, G.B. (2002). The effects of monetary incentives on effort and
task performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting,
Organizations, and Society, 27, 303-345. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Camerer, F. C. & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in
experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk
and Uncertainty, 19, 1-3; 7-42.
Colin F., C., & Robin M. H. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments:
A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty,
19(1-3), 7-42. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of
EconomicSurveys, 15(5), 589-611. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 22
Geiger, M. A. & Cooper, E. A. (1996). Using expectancy theory to assess student
motivation. Issues In Accounting Education, 11(1), 113.
Glucksberg, S. & Weisberg, R. W. (1966). Verbal behavior and problem solving: Some effects of
labeling in a functional fixedness problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(5),
659-664. doi: 10.1037/h0023118.
Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization.
Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18-29.
Jurgensen, C. (1978). Job preferences (What makes a job good or bad?). Journal of
Applied Psychology, 65(3), 267-276. Retrieved from APA PsycNET.
Johnson, D. A., & Dickinson, A. M. (2010). Employee-of-the-Month programs: Do they
really work?. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 30(4), 308-324.
doi:10.1080/01608061.2010.520144.
Judge, T., Thoresen, C., Bono, J., & Patton, G. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.127.3.376.
Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5),
54-63.
Leuven, E., Oosterbeek, H., & Klaauw, B. (2010). The effect of financial rewards on
students’ achievement evidence from a randomized experiment. Journal of the
European Economic Association, 8(6), 1243-1265.
Locke, E.A., Shaw, K., Saari, L., & Latham, G. (1981). Goal-setting and task
performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 23
Motowidlo, S. (2003). Job Performance. Handbook of Psychology, 39-53. doi:
10.1002/0471264385.wei1203.
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Employee motivation: A powerful new
model. Harvard Business Review.
Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York:
Penguin Group.
Rydval, O. (2003). The impact of financial incentives on task performance: The role of
cognitive abilities & intrinsic motivation labour. Center for Economic Research
and Graduate Education: Economics Institute. http://test.cerge-
ei.cz/pdf/wbrf_papers/O_Rydval_WBRF_Paper.pdf.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 24
Appendix A: Survey Cover Letter
Dear JMU Student,
This survey is being conducted by Britney Myers of the Adult Human Resource Master’s Program at James Madison University. The target audience for the study is all JMU students’ upper level undergraduate students with Junior standing, 60+ credit hours, and all graduate students. The purpose of this study is to investigate how motivation and performance are affected by monetary incentives. Recent studies have shown that for more complex tasks that require cognitive skill, monetary incentives do not work the way they are supposed to. This study is being done to help further investigate the effectiveness of monetary incentives and under what settings they should or should not be used. The questions in the survey are designed to determine how people feel about monetary incentives and how they feel these incentives affect their work and performance. It will require no more than ten minutes of your time. There is no compensation for completing this survey, although it is greatly appreciated if you do choose to complete the survey. There is also no known risk to completing this survey. There is no forced completion so if you choose to take the survey, you may stop and end it at any given time. All answers that are submitted are anonymous. The data will be analyzed using quantitative methods with statistical software. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at [email protected].
Thank you for your time.
Britney Myers
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 25
Appendix B: Survey
Part A
1. Please choose your age range
(18-‐20; 21-‐23; 24-‐26; 27+)
2. College level
(a. Freshman b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior e. Graduate student)
3. Have you ever held a full or part time job?
(Yes; No)
Part B
1. Monetary incentives provide extra motivation for me.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
2. Monetary incentives stress me out.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
3. Monetary incentives motivate me to work harder.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
4. Monetary incentives help me perform better on tasks.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
5. My intrinsic motivation is enough for me to want to do well.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
6. The harder the task is, the less incentives work for me.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
7. I perform better when monetary incentives are given.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
Incentives, Motivation and Performance 26
8. The harder the task is, the more incentives work for me.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
9. I perform worse when monetary incentives are given.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
10. Monetary incentives rarely ever motivate me.
(Strongly Agree…Agree…Neutral…Disagree…Strongly Disagree)
11. What is the best motivator for you to perform well?
(Open-ended question)
12. How important is intrinsic motivation to you?
(Open-ended question)