Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20170073.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tailored Feedback and Worker Green Behavior: Field Evidence from Bus Drivers

Author

Listed:
  • Adriaan (A.R.) Soetevent

    (University of Groningen, The Netherlands; Tinbergen Institute, The Netherlands)

  • Gert-Jan Romensen

    (University of Groningen, The Netherlands;)

Abstract
How to engage workers in conservation efforts when the company pays the bill? In a field experiment with 409 bus drivers, we investigate the potential of targeted peer-comparison feedback and on-the-road coaching. Drivers receive individualized reports with peer-comparison messages on multiple driving dimensions. In addition, coaches quasi randomly provide drivers with in person coaching moments on the bus. Based on 800,000 trip-level observations, we find that the targeted peer-comparison treatments do not improve driving. On-the-road coaching significantly improves driving on multiple dimensions but only temporarily. Further analysis reveals negative interaction effects between the two programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriaan (A.R.) Soetevent & Gert-Jan Romensen, 2017. "Tailored Feedback and Worker Green Behavior: Field Evidence from Bus Drivers," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-073/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20170073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/17073.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Azmat, Ghazala & Iriberri, Nagore, 2010. "The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(7-8), pages 435-452, August.
    2. Lazear, Edward P & Rosen, Sherwin, 1981. "Rank-Order Tournaments as Optimum Labor Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(5), pages 841-864, October.
    3. Jean Tirole & Roland Bénabou, 2006. "Incentives and Prosocial Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1652-1678, December.
    4. Eriksson, Tor & Poulsen, Anders & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2009. "Feedback and incentives: Experimental evidence," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 679-688, December.
    5. Tran, Anh & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2012. "Rank as an inherent incentive: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(9-10), pages 645-650.
    6. Gosnell, Greer & Metcalfe, Robert & List, John A, 2016. "A new approach to an age-old problem: solving externalities by incenting workers directly," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84331, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Benny Moldovanu & Aner Sela & Xianwen Shi, 2007. "Contests for Status," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(2), pages 338-363.
    8. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    9. Ashraf, Nava & Bandiera, Oriana & Lee, Scott S., 2014. "Awards unbundled: Evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 44-63.
    10. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Mareike Nossol, 2011. "Tournaments Without Prizes: Evidence from Personnel Records," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1721-1736, October.
    11. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur & Joeri Sol & Willem Verbeke, 2013. "Tournament Incentives in the Field: Gender Differences in the Workplace," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 305-326.
    12. Camelia M. Kuhnen & Agnieszka Tymula, 2012. "Feedback, Self-Esteem, and Performance in Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 94-113, January.
    13. Steven Blader & Claudine Gartenberg & Andrea Prat, 2020. "The Contingent Effect of Management Practices," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 87(2), pages 721-749.
    14. Robert Hahn & Robert D. Metcalfe & David Novgorodsky & Michael K. Price, 2016. "The Behavioralist as Policy Designer: The Need to Test Multiple Treatments to Meet Multiple Targets," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2016-05, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    15. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    16. George P. Baker & Thomas N. Hubbard, 2003. "Make Versus Buy in Trucking: Asset Ownership, Job Design, and Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 551-572, June.
    17. Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Fliessbach, Klaus & Sunde, Uwe & Weber, Bernd, 2011. "Relative versus absolute income, joy of winning, and gender: Brain imaging evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3-4), pages 279-285, April.
    18. Lam, Chak Fu & DeRue, D. Scott & Karam, Elizabeth P. & Hollenbeck, John R., 2011. "The impact of feedback frequency on learning and task performance: Challenging the “more is better” assumption," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 217-228.
    19. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    20. Paul J. Ferraro & Michael K. Price, 2013. "Using Nonpecuniary Strategies to Influence Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(1), pages 64-73, March.
    21. Richard B. Freeman, 1982. "Union Wage Practices and Wage Dispersion within Establishments," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 36(1), pages 3-21, October.
    22. C. Kirabo Jackson Jr. & Henry S. Schneider Jr., 2015. "Checklists and Worker Behavior: A Field Experiment," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 136-168, October.
    23. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    24. J. Scott Holladay & Jacob LaRiviere & David M. Novgorodsky & Michael Price, 2016. "Asymmetric Effects of Non-Pecuniary Signals on Search and Purchase Behavior for Energy-Efficient Durable Goods," NBER Working Papers 22939, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hoffmann, Christin & Thommes, Kirsten, 2020. "Can digital feedback increase employee performance and energy efficiency in firms? Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 49-65.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Romensen, Gert-Jan & Soetevent, Adriaan, 2017. "Tailored Feedback and Worker Green Behavior," Research Report 17016-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    2. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    3. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status (preprint)," Working Papers halshs-01090241, HAL.
    4. C. Bram Cadsby & Jim Engle-Warnick & Tony Fang & Fei Song, 2014. "Psychological Incentives, Financial Incentives, and Risk Attitudes in Tournaments: An Artefactual Field Experiment," Working Papers 1403, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    5. David Gill & Zdenka Kissová & Jaesun Lee & Victoria Prowse, 2019. "First-Place Loving and Last-Place Loathing: How Rank in the Distribution of Performance Affects Effort Provision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 494-507, February.
    6. Brade, Raphael & Himmler, Oliver & Jäckle, Robert, 2018. "Normatively Framed Relative Performance Feedback – Field Experiment and Replication," MPRA Paper 88830, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Anik Ashraf, 2022. "Performance Ranks, Conformity, and Cooperation: Evidence from a Sweater Factory," CESifo Working Paper Series 9591, CESifo.
    8. Brade, Raphael & Himmler, Oliver & Jäckle, Robert, 2022. "Relative performance feedback and the effects of being above average — field experiment and replication," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    9. Hoffmann, Christin & Thommes, Kirsten, 2020. "Can digital feedback increase employee performance and energy efficiency in firms? Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 49-65.
    10. Raphael Brade & Oliver Himmler & Robert Jaeckle, 2023. "Relative Performance Feedback and Long-Term Tasks – Experimental Evidence from Higher Education," CESifo Working Paper Series 10346, CESifo.
    11. Matthias Stefan & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Sutter & Markus Walzl, 2020. "Monetary and Social Incentives in Multi-Tasking: The Ranking Substitution Effect," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Christiane Bradler & Robert Dur & Susanne Neckermann & Arjan Non, 2013. "Employee Recognition and Performance: A Field Experiment," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 13-038/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    13. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur & Arjan Non & Willem Verbeke, 2015. "The Effects of Prize Spread and Noise in Elimination Tournaments: A Natural Field Experiment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(3), pages 521-569.
    14. Buurman, Margaretha & Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Zoutenbier, Robin, 2020. "When do teachers respond to student feedback? Evidence from a field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    15. Simon Piest & Philipp Schreck, 2021. "Contests and unethical behavior in organizations: a review and synthesis of the empirical literature," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 679-721, October.
    16. Isaac Mbiti & Danila Serra, 2022. "Health workers’ behavior, patient reporting and reputational concerns: lab-in-the-field experimental evidence from Kenya," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 514-556, April.
    17. Jordi Blanes i Vidal & Mareike Nossol, 2011. "Tournaments Without Prizes: Evidence from Personnel Records," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1721-1736, October.
    18. Delavallade, Clara, 2021. "Motivating teams: Private feedback and public recognition at work," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    19. Gjedrem, William Gilje, 2018. "Relative performance feedback: Effective or dismaying?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-16.
    20. Gwen-Jiro Clochard & Guillaume Hollard & Julia Wirtz, 2022. "More effort or better technologies? On the effect of relative performance feedback," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 22/767, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    peer comparisons; coaching; worker motivation; fuel conservation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D2 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations
    • M5 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20170073. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.