Deadlines, Workflows, Task Sorting, and Work Quality

References

• Alcácer J, Gittelman M, Sampat B (2009) Applicant and examiner citations in U.S. patents: An overview and analysis. Res. Policy 38(2):415–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amabile TM, Hadley CN, Kramer SJ (2002a) Creativity under the gun. Harvard Bus. Rev. 80(8):52–61.Google Scholar
• Amabile TM, Mueller JS, Simpson WB, Hadley CN, Kramer SJ, Fleming L (2002b) Time pressure and creativity in organizations: A longitudinal field study. HBS Working Paper 02-073, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Andrews FM, Farris GF (1972) Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 8(2):185–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asch BJ (1990) Navy recruiter productivity and the Freeman Plan. Report R3713, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
• Balasubramanian N, Lee J (2008) Firm age and innovation. Indust. Corporate Change 17(5):1019–1047.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bassett GA (1979) A study of the effects of task goal and schedule choice on work performance. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 24(2):202–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J (2008) The value of US patents by owner and patent characteristics. Res. Policy 37(5):932–945.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bessen J, Meurer MJ (2008) Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Bluedorn AC, Denhardt RB (1988) Time and organizations. J. Management 14(2):299–320.Google Scholar
• Cadena X, Schoar A, Cristea A, Delgado-Medrano HM (2011) Fighting procrastination in the workplace: An experiment. NBER Working Paper 16944, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carley M, Hegde D, Marco AC (2015) What is the probability of receiving a US patent? Yale J. Law Tech. 17(1):203–223.Google Scholar
• Carpenter D, Chattopadhyay J, Moffitt S, Nall C (2012) The complications of controlling agency time discretion: FDA review deadlines and postmarket drug safety. Amer. J. Political Sci. 56(1):98–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn IM, Kortum S, Stern S (2002) Are all patent examiners equal? The impact of characteristics on patent statistics and litigation outcomes. NBER Working Paper 8980, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Courty P, Marschke G (1997) Measuring government performance: Lessons from a federal job- training program. Amer. Econom. Rev. 87(2):383–388.Google Scholar
• Frakes M, Wasserman M (2015) Does the U.S. patent and trademark office grant too many bad patents? Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Stanford Law Rev. 67(3):613–676.Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER Working Paper 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1):16–38.Google Scholar
• Hegde D, Mowery DC, Graham SJH (2009) Pioneering inventors or thicket builders: Which U.S. firms use continuations in patenting? Management Sci. 55(7):1214–1226.Link, Google Scholar
• Holmstrom B, Milgrom P (1991) Multitask principal–agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. J. Law, Econom. Organ. 7(special issue):24–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Isenberg DJ (1981) Some effects of time-pressure on vertical structure and decision-making accuracy in small groups. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 27(1):119–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karau SJ, Kelly JR (1992) The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 28(6):542–571.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelly JR, Karau SJ (1999) Group decision making: The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. 25(11):1342–1354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelly JR, McGrath JE (1985) Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 49(2):395–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lai R, D’Amour A, Fleming L (2009) The careers and co-authorship networks of U.S. patent-holders, since 1975. Working paper, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Lazear EP, Gibbs M (2014) Personnel Economics in Practice (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Sampat B (2012) Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(3):817–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Locke EA, Latham GP (1984) Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• March JG, Simon HA (1958) Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• O’Donoghue T, Rabin M (2001) Choice and procrastination. Quart. J. Econom. 116(1):121–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oyer P (1998) Fiscal year ends and nonlinear incentive contracts: The effect on business seasonality. Quart. J. Econom. 113(1):149–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pakes A (1986) Patents as options: Some estimates of the value of holding European patent stocks. Econometrica 54(4):755–784.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parks CD, Cowlin R (1995) Group discussion as affected by number of alternatives and by a time limit. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 62(3):267–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampat BN (2010) When do applicants search for prior art? J. Law Econom. 53(2):399–416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampat BN (2012) Examiner citation data. (Data set.) Harvard Dataverse, V.2. http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/18735.Google Scholar
• Schriber JB (1986) An exploratory study of the temporal dimensions of work organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.Google Scholar