When the Meaning of Work Has Disappeared: Experimental Evidence on Employees’ Performance and Emotions

References

• Akerlof GA (1982) Labor contracts as partial gift exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 97(4):543–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akerlof GA, Yellen JL (1990) The fair wage-effort hypothesis and unemployment. Quart. J. Econom. 105(2):255–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Al-Ubaydli O, List JA (2015) On the generalizability of experimental results in economics. Fréchette GR, Schotter A, eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology (Oxford University Press, New York), 420–462.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ariely D, Kamenica E, Prelec D (2008) Man’s search for meaning: The case of Legos. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 67(3–4):671–677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ashraf N, Bandiera O, Jack BK (2014) No margin, no mission? A field experiment on incentives for pro-social tasks. J. Public Econom. 120:1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bäker A, Mechtel M (2013) The role of task meaning on output in groups: Experimental evidence. IAAEU Discussion Paper 08/2013, Institute for Labour Law and Industrial Relations in the European Union, Trier University, Trier, Germany.Google Scholar
• Becker SO, Messer D, Wolter SC (2013) A gift is not always a gift: Heterogeneity and long-term effects in a gift exchange experiment. Economica 80(318):345–371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):122–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradler C, Dur R, Neckermann S, Non A (2016) Employee recognition and performance: A field experiment. Management Sci. 62(11):3085–3099.Link, Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Gong E (2016) Motivating agents: How much does the mission matter? J. Labor Econom. 34(1):211–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandler D, Kapelner A (2013) Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing markets. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 90:123–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Compte O, Postlewaite A (2004) Confidence-enhanced performance. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(5):1536–1557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Costa PT, McCrae RR (1989) The NEO PI/FFI Manual supplement (Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL).Google Scholar
• Falk A, Heckman JJ (2009) Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 326(5952):535–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Ichino A (2006) Clean evidence on peer effects. J. Labor Econom. 24(1):39–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A (1993) Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Quart. J. Econom. 108(2):437–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A (1998) Gift exchange and reciprocity in competitive experimental markets. Eur. Econom. Rev. 42(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehrler S, Kosfeld M (2014) Pro-social missions and worker motivation: An experimental study. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 100:99–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fried Y, Ferris GR (1987) The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psych. 40(2):287–322.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Fehr E (2002) Fairness in the labour market. Bolle F, Lehmann-Waffenschmidt M, eds. Surveys in Experimental Economics Bargaining, Cooperation and Election Stock Markets (Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany), 95–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List JA (2006) Putting behavioral economics to work: Testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments. Econometrica 74(5):1365–1384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant AM (2008) The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. J. Appl. Psych. 93(1):108–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 16:250–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison GW, List JA (2004) Field experiments. J. Econom. Literature 42(4):1009–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hennig-Schmidt H, Sadrieh A, Rockenbach B (2010) In search of workers’ real effort reciprocity—A field and a laboratory experiment. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 8(4):817–837.Google Scholar
• Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP (2007) Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl. Psych. 92(5):1332–1356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jamison J, Karlan D, Schechter L (2008) To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 68(3–4):477–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeworrek S, Mertins V (2014) Wage delegation in the field. IAAEU Discussion Paper 08/2014, Institute for Labour Law and Industrial Relations in the European Union, Trier University, Trier, Germany.Google Scholar
• Kosfeld M, Neckermann S (2011) Getting more work for nothing? Symbolic awards and worker performance. Amer. Econom. J.: Microeconomics 3(3):86–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kosfeld M, Neckermann S, Yang X (2018) The effects of financial and recognition incentives across work contexts: The role of meaning. Econom. Inquiry 55(1):237–247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krohne HW, Egloff B, Kohlmann CW, Tausch A (1996) Untersuchung mit einer deutschen Version der “Positive and Negative Affect Schedule” (PANAS). Diagnostica 42(2):139–156.Google Scholar
• Kube S, Maréchal MA, Puppe C (2012) The currency of reciprocity—Gift-exchange in the workplace. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(4):1644–1662.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J. Econom. Perspect. 21(2):153–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein G (1999) Because it is there: The challenge of mountaineering for utility theory. Kyklos 52(3):315–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maniadis Z, Tufano F, List JA (2014) One swallow doesn’t make a summer: New evidence on anchoring effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(1):277–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rick S, Loewenstein G (2008) The role of emotion in economic behavior. Lewis M, Haviand Jones J, Feldmann Barett L, eds. Handbook of Emotions, 3rd ed. (Guilford, New York), 138–156.Google Scholar
• Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A (2010) On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Res. Organ. Behav. 30:91–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Searle R, Den Hartog DN, Weibel A, Gillespie N, Six F, Hatzakis T, Skinner D (2011) Trust in the employer: The role of high-involvement work practices and procedural justice in European organizations. Internat. J. Human Resource Management 22(5):1069–1092.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tonin M, Vlassopoulos M (2010) Disentangling the sources of pro-socially motivated effort: A field experiment. J. Public Econom. 94(11–12):1086–1092.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 54(6):1063–1070.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weller I, Matiaske W (2009) Persönlichkeit und Personalforschung. Vorstellung einer Kurzskala zur Messung der “Big Five”. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung 23(3):258–266.Google Scholar
• Zizzo DJ (2010) Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 13(1):75–98.Crossref, Google Scholar