Peer Evaluations and Team Performance: When Friends Do Worse Than Strangers

By Corgnet, Brice | Economic Inquiry, January 2012 | Go to article overview

Peer Evaluations and Team Performance: When Friends Do Worse Than Strangers


Corgnet, Brice, Economic Inquiry


I. INTRODUCTION

A. Team Incentives and Peer Evaluations

In the last 20 years, more intensive use of teamwork in organizations has aroused interest with regard to the factors affecting the success of teams (Devine et al., 1999; Kozlowski et al., 1999; Lawler, Mohrman, and Ledford 1995). One of the crucial elements in the success of teams relates to the choice of the sharing rule for the joint outcome. On the one hand, paying team workers according to their individual contributions instead of assigning them a fixed share of the joint outcome reduces free-tiding behaviors (Alchian and Demsetz 1972; Holmstrom 1982). (1) On the other hand, rewarding workers according to their individual performance is likely to be costly as individual contributions are typically difficult to evaluate.

In this paper, we analyze the impact on team performance of using peer assessments to share a jointly produced outcome in a laboratory experiment in which three subjects are randomly matched to work on a real-effort task. Subjects had to complete a real team task for which individual effort and abilities determined joint profits. This allowed us to introduce a dimension of merit in the subjects' decisions concerning peer evaluations. We focus on a small-team context in which the different partners are likely to observe each others' levels of effort and could, in principle, use this information to evaluate their team partners' relative contributions. (2) In our setting, subjects use peer evaluations to determine team members' respective shares of the joint outcome. We impose that the allocation rule for the joint outcome is budget balanced so that subjects cannot allocate an amount of money greater than their team output. In the case of budget-balanced allocation rules, one can derive from Holmstrom (1982) that purely self-interested partners will have incentives to lie and undermine the achievements of their coworkers preventing group members from being rewarded according to their relative contribution. (3) As a result, even in a context in which team members are able to assess the contribution of their partners without errors they will have no incentives to offer a balanced and truthful assessment and peer evaluations will affect neither the motivation of team members nor team performance.

However, peer ratings have been used in many disciplines such as engineering, management, and medical sciences as a mechanism with which to gather information about individual contributions (Clark, Davies, and Skeets 2005: Conway et al., 1993; Dochy, Segers, and Sluijsmans 1999; Ramsey and Wenrich 1999; Thomas, Gebo, and Hellmann 1999; Tu and Lu 2005; Van Rosendaal and Jennett 1992), suggesting that reliable information, not accessible to outsiders, can be extracted from such assessments. Our objective is to provide an experimental analysis that helps us assess the impact of such practices on team performance. There are two possible effects at play here. First, if team members effectively report an accurate estimate of the achievements of others, subjects will end up being paid according to a measure of their relative contribution to the joint outcome so that free riding behaviors may be reduced. Second, the use of peer evaluations, by focusing the attention of team partners on each others' contribution may increase peer pressure and reduce free-riding behaviors in teams (Falk and Ichino 2006; Kandel and Lazear 1992). Evidently, peer evaluations are likely to be imperfect as they can be subject to the influence of team partners through politicking activities or be driven by social norms or pure self-interest. However, peer evaluations allow for the implementation of payment schemes that are based, even though imperfectly, on individuals' contributions without the need for external monitoring. In sum, peer ratings can be seen as an inexpensive mechanism to collect information about workers' contributions.

In this paper, we investigate experimentally the effect on team performance of an allocation mechanism based on peer evaluations. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Peer Evaluations and Team Performance: When Friends Do Worse Than Strangers
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.