International Debate

The truth about bonuses

February 22, 2011 1008

New research from economists at the University of Nottingham suggests that incentive payments in the form of cash bonuses don’t work.

Experts in behavioural economics carried out a series of experiments to examine the effect of bonuses and fines on workers’ performance. The idea was to mirror not just a workplace scenario but other real-life situations such as tax inspections and even speed-limit compliance.

The study, involving more than 100 volunteers and led by Dr Daniele Nosenzo, was carried out at the Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics at Nottingham’s School of Economics. Subjects were assigned the roles of employers or workers and randomly paired over a number of rounds of an “inspection game”.

In each round a worker had to decide whether to supply “high” or “low” effort, while at the same time the employer chose whether to “inspect” the worker or not. In some treatments the worker received a bonus for supplying high effort when inspected, while in others he was fined for low effort.

Researchers found that workers are more motivated to work hard by the threat of financial penalties than by the prospect of bonuses.

Further details about the research are available from the University of Nottingham.

Related Articles

Emerson College Pollsters Explain How Pollsters Do What They Do
Communication
October 23, 2024

Emerson College Pollsters Explain How Pollsters Do What They Do

Read Now
All Change! 2024 – A Year of Elections: Campaign for Social Science Annual Sage Lecture
Event
October 10, 2024

All Change! 2024 – A Year of Elections: Campaign for Social Science Annual Sage Lecture

Read Now
‘Settler Colonialism’ and the Promised Land
International Debate
September 27, 2024

‘Settler Colonialism’ and the Promised Land

Read Now
Webinar: Banned Books Week 2024
Event
September 24, 2024

Webinar: Banned Books Week 2024

Read Now
Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

The creation of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) has led to a heated debate on the balance between peer review and evaluative metrics in research assessment regimes. Luciana Balboa, Elizabeth Gadd, Eva Mendez, Janne Pölönen, Karen Stroobants, Erzsebet Toth Cithra and the CoARA Steering Board address these arguments and state CoARA’s commitment to finding ways in which peer review and bibliometrics can be used together responsibly.

Read Now
Revisiting the ‘Research Parasite’ Debate in the Age of AI

Revisiting the ‘Research Parasite’ Debate in the Age of AI

The large language models, or LLMs, that underlie generative AI tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, have an ethical challenge in how they parasitize freely available data.

Read Now
Trippin’ Forward: Management Research and the Development of Psychedelics

Trippin’ Forward: Management Research and the Development of Psychedelics

Charlie Smith reflects on his interest in psychedelic research, the topic of his research article, “Psychedelics, Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy and Employees’ Wellbeing,” published in Journal of Management Inquiry.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments