An empirical examination of negotiated goals and performance-to-goal following the introduction of an incentive bonus plan with participative goal setting

S.W. Anderson, H.C. Dekker, K.L. Sedatole

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Prior research documents performance improvements following the implementation of pay-for-performance (PFP) bonus plans. However, bonus plans typically pay for performance relative to a goal, and the manager whose performance is to be evaluated often participates in setting the goal. In these settings, PFP affects managers' incentive to influence goal levels in addition to affecting performance effort. Prior field research is silent on the effect of PFP on goals, the focus of this paper. Using sales and sales goal data from 61 stores of a U.S. retail firm over 10 quarters, we find that the introduction of a performance-based bonus plan with participative goal setting is accompanied by lower goals that are more accurate predictors of subsequent sales performance. Statistical tests indicate that increased goal accuracy is attributable to managers "meeting but not beating" goals and to new information being impounded in goals. We further investigate how differences among managers are associated with goal levels. We find significant "manager effects" but no "supervisor effects." In additional tests we find that cross-sectional differences among managers are related to differing marginal returns to slackbuilding effort. Turning to the role of new information on goals, we find that prior period performance has incremental power to explain goal levels in the postplan period. Our results provide field-based evidence that PFP and participative goal setting affect the level and accuracy of goals, effects that are associated with both information exchange and with managers' incentives to influence goals. © 2010 INFORMS.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)90-109
JournalManagement Science
Volume56
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Incentives
Goal setting
Managers
Bonus plans
Pay-for-performance
Sales performance
Field research
Information exchange
Retail
Predictors
Statistical tests
Performance improvement
Incremental
Supervisors

Cite this

@article{dade07b639564a50a9f164e529711ad0,
title = "An empirical examination of negotiated goals and performance-to-goal following the introduction of an incentive bonus plan with participative goal setting",
abstract = "Prior research documents performance improvements following the implementation of pay-for-performance (PFP) bonus plans. However, bonus plans typically pay for performance relative to a goal, and the manager whose performance is to be evaluated often participates in setting the goal. In these settings, PFP affects managers' incentive to influence goal levels in addition to affecting performance effort. Prior field research is silent on the effect of PFP on goals, the focus of this paper. Using sales and sales goal data from 61 stores of a U.S. retail firm over 10 quarters, we find that the introduction of a performance-based bonus plan with participative goal setting is accompanied by lower goals that are more accurate predictors of subsequent sales performance. Statistical tests indicate that increased goal accuracy is attributable to managers {"}meeting but not beating{"} goals and to new information being impounded in goals. We further investigate how differences among managers are associated with goal levels. We find significant {"}manager effects{"} but no {"}supervisor effects.{"} In additional tests we find that cross-sectional differences among managers are related to differing marginal returns to slackbuilding effort. Turning to the role of new information on goals, we find that prior period performance has incremental power to explain goal levels in the postplan period. Our results provide field-based evidence that PFP and participative goal setting affect the level and accuracy of goals, effects that are associated with both information exchange and with managers' incentives to influence goals. {\circledC} 2010 INFORMS.",
author = "S.W. Anderson and H.C. Dekker and K.L. Sedatole",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1287/mnsc.1090.1088",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "90--109",
journal = "Management Science",
issn = "0025-1909",
publisher = "INFORMS Inst.for Operations Res.and the Management Sciences",
number = "1",

}

An empirical examination of negotiated goals and performance-to-goal following the introduction of an incentive bonus plan with participative goal setting. / Anderson, S.W.; Dekker, H.C.; Sedatole, K.L.

In: Management Science, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2010, p. 90-109.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - An empirical examination of negotiated goals and performance-to-goal following the introduction of an incentive bonus plan with participative goal setting

AU - Anderson, S.W.

AU - Dekker, H.C.

AU - Sedatole, K.L.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Prior research documents performance improvements following the implementation of pay-for-performance (PFP) bonus plans. However, bonus plans typically pay for performance relative to a goal, and the manager whose performance is to be evaluated often participates in setting the goal. In these settings, PFP affects managers' incentive to influence goal levels in addition to affecting performance effort. Prior field research is silent on the effect of PFP on goals, the focus of this paper. Using sales and sales goal data from 61 stores of a U.S. retail firm over 10 quarters, we find that the introduction of a performance-based bonus plan with participative goal setting is accompanied by lower goals that are more accurate predictors of subsequent sales performance. Statistical tests indicate that increased goal accuracy is attributable to managers "meeting but not beating" goals and to new information being impounded in goals. We further investigate how differences among managers are associated with goal levels. We find significant "manager effects" but no "supervisor effects." In additional tests we find that cross-sectional differences among managers are related to differing marginal returns to slackbuilding effort. Turning to the role of new information on goals, we find that prior period performance has incremental power to explain goal levels in the postplan period. Our results provide field-based evidence that PFP and participative goal setting affect the level and accuracy of goals, effects that are associated with both information exchange and with managers' incentives to influence goals. © 2010 INFORMS.

AB - Prior research documents performance improvements following the implementation of pay-for-performance (PFP) bonus plans. However, bonus plans typically pay for performance relative to a goal, and the manager whose performance is to be evaluated often participates in setting the goal. In these settings, PFP affects managers' incentive to influence goal levels in addition to affecting performance effort. Prior field research is silent on the effect of PFP on goals, the focus of this paper. Using sales and sales goal data from 61 stores of a U.S. retail firm over 10 quarters, we find that the introduction of a performance-based bonus plan with participative goal setting is accompanied by lower goals that are more accurate predictors of subsequent sales performance. Statistical tests indicate that increased goal accuracy is attributable to managers "meeting but not beating" goals and to new information being impounded in goals. We further investigate how differences among managers are associated with goal levels. We find significant "manager effects" but no "supervisor effects." In additional tests we find that cross-sectional differences among managers are related to differing marginal returns to slackbuilding effort. Turning to the role of new information on goals, we find that prior period performance has incremental power to explain goal levels in the postplan period. Our results provide field-based evidence that PFP and participative goal setting affect the level and accuracy of goals, effects that are associated with both information exchange and with managers' incentives to influence goals. © 2010 INFORMS.

U2 - 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1088

DO - 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1088

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 90

EP - 109

JO - Management Science

JF - Management Science

SN - 0025-1909

IS - 1

ER -