Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/180541 
Year of Publication: 
2018
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 11523
Publisher: 
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn
Abstract: 
Much of the empirical literature on PRP (Performance Related Pay) focuses on a question of whether the firm can increase firm performance in general and enterprise productivity in particular by introducing PRP and if so, how much. However, not all PRP programs are created equal and PRP programs vary significantly in a variety of attributes. This paper provides novel and rigorous evidence on the productivity effect of varying attributes of PRP and shows that the details of PRP indeed matter. In so doing we exploit the panel nature of our Finnish Linked Employer-Employee Data on the details of PRP. We first establish that the omitted variable bias is serious, makes the cross-sectional estimates on the productivity effect of the details of PRP biased upward substantially. Relying on the fixed effect estimates that account for such bias, we find: (i) group incentive PRP is more potent in boosting enterprise productivity than individual incentive PRP; (ii) group incentive PRP with profitability as a performance measure is especially powerful in raising firm productivity; (iii) when a narrow measure (such as cost reduction) is already used, adding another narrow measure (such as quality improvement) yields no additional productivity gain; and (iv) PRP with greater Power of incentives (the share of PRP in total compensation) results in greater productivity gains, and returns to Power of incentives diminishes very slowly.
Subjects: 
performance pay and productivity
JEL: 
M52
J33
J24
J53
O53
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
243.13 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.