Complementarity of Performance Pay and Task Allocation

References

• Aghion P, Tirole J (1997) Formal and real authority in organizations. J. Political Econom. 105(1):1–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alonso R, Dessein W, Matouschek N (2008) When does coordination require centralization? Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(1):145–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Brynjolfsson E, Wu L (2012) Three-way complementarities: Performance pay, human resource analytics, and information technology. Management Sci. 58(5):913–931.Link, Google Scholar
• Arora A (1996) Testing for complementarities in reduced form regressions: A note. Econom. Lett. 50(1):51–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atalay E, Hortasçu A, Syverson C (2013) Vertical integration and input flows. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(4):1120–1148.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Stern S (1998) An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in organization design. NBER Working Paper 6600, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Barnard C (1938) The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Baum R, Wally S (2003) Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management J. 24(11):1107–1129.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Black SE, Lynch LM (2001) How to compete: The impact of workplace practices and information technology on productivity. Rev. Econom. Statist. 83(3):434–445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Van Reenen J (2007) Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quart. J. Econom. 122(4):1351–1408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Sadun R, Van Reenen J (2012) The organization of firms across countries. Quart. J. Econom. 127(4):1663–1705.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Sadun R, Van Reenen J (2013a) Management as technology? Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Garicano L, Sadun R, Van Reenen J (2013b) The distinct effects of information technology and communication technology on firm organization. Management Sci. 60(12):2859–2885.Link, Google Scholar
• Bloom N, Brynjolfsson E, Foster L, Jarmin R, Patnaik M, Eksten IS, Van Reenen J (2014) IT and management in America. Discussion Paper DP9886, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
• Bresnahan T, Brynjolfsson E, Hitt L (2002) Information technology, workplace organization and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. Quart. J. Econom. 117(1):339–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown WM, Rispoli L (2014) Metropolitan gross domestic product: experimental estimates, 2001 to 2009. Econom. Insights 11-626-X(042). Accessed September 6, 2017, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-626-x/11-626-x2014042-eng.htm.Google Scholar
• Cassiman B, Veugelers R (2006) In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Sci. 52(1):68–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Chang MH, Harrington JE (2000) Centralization vs. decentralization in a multi-unit organization: A computational model of a retail chain as a multi-agent adaptive system. Management Sci. 46(11):1427–1440.Link, Google Scholar
• Ennen E, Richter A (2010) The whole is more than the sum of its parts—Or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. J. Management 36(1):207–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finkelstein S, Hambrick DC (1996) Strategic Leadership: Top Executives and Their Effects on Organizations (West Publishing Company, Minneapolis/St. Paul).Google Scholar
• Foster L, Haltiwanger J, Syverson C (2008) Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: Selection on productivity or profitability? Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(1):394–425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frank DH, Obloj T (2014) Firm‐specific human capital, organizational incentives, and agency costs: Evidence from retail banking. Strategic Management J. 35(9):1279–1301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garicano L (2000) Hierarchies and the organization of knowledge in production. J. Political Econom. 108(5):874–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garicano L, Rossi-Hansberg E (2012) Organizing growth. J. Econom. Theory 147(2):623–656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibbs M, Hendricks W (2004) Do formal salary systems really matter? ILR Rev. 58(1):71–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Finkelstein S (1987) Managerial discretion: A bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Cummings LL, Staw BM, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 9 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT), 369–406.Google Scholar
• Hamel G (2011) First, let’s fire all the managers. Harvard Bus. Rev. 89(12):48–60.Google Scholar
• Heise DR (1972) Employing nominal variables, induced variables, and block variables in path analyses. Sociol. Methods Res. 1(2):147–173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hopenhayn H (1992) Entry, exit and firm dynamics in the long run. Econometrica 60(5):1127–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ichniowski C, Shaw K (2003) Beyond incentive pay: Insiders’ estimates of the value of complementary human resource management practices. J. Econom. Perspect. 17(1):155–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ichniowski C, Shaw K, Prennushi G (1997) The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 87(3):291–313.Google Scholar
• Jakobsson U (1976) On the measurement of the degree of progression. J. Public Econom. 5(1):161–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jovanovic B (1982) Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica 50(3):649–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kalnins A, Lafontaine F (2004) Multi-unit ownership in franchising: Evidence from the fast-food industry in Texas. RAND J. Econom. 35(4):747–761.Google Scholar
• Larkin I (2014) The cost of high-powered incentives: Employee gaming in enterprise software sales. J. Labor Econom. 32(2):199–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear E (2000) Performance pay and productivity. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(5):1346–1361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazear P, Oyer P (2013) Personnel economics. Gibbons R, Roberts J, eds. Handbook of Organizational Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 479–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lo D, Dessein W, Ghosh M, Lafontaine F (2016) Price delegation and performance pay: Evidence from industrial sales forces. J. Law Econom. Organ. 32(3):508–544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacDuffie JP (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. 48(2):197–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Melitz MJ (2003) The impact of trade on intra‐industry reallocations and aggregate industry productivity. Econometrica 71(6):1695–1725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P, Roberts J (1995) Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. J. Accounting Econom. 19(2):179–208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy R, Clemens J, Veldhuis N (2013) The economic costs of increased marginal tax rates in Canada. Studies in Budget and Tax Policy Report, Fraser Institute, Vancouver.Google Scholar
• Musgrave R, Musgrave P (1989) Public Finance in Theory and Practice (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Nadler DA, Tushman ML (1997) Competing by Design (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nickerson JA, Silverman BS (2003) Why firms want to organize efficiently and what keeps them from doing so: Inappropriate governance, performance, and adaptation in a deregulated industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(3):433–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Novak S, Stern S (2008) How does outsourcing affect performance dynamics? Evidence from the automobile industry. Management Sci. 54(12):1963–1979.Link, Google Scholar
• Penrose ET (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm (M. E. Sharpe, New York).Google Scholar
• Pierce L (2012) Organizational structure and the limits of knowledge sharing: Incentive conflict and agency in car leasing. Management Sci. 58(6):1106–1121.Link, Google Scholar
• Porter M (1996) What is strategy? Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(6):61–78.Google Scholar
• Porter M, Siggelkow N, (2008) Contextuality within activity systems and sustainability of competitive advantage. Acad. Management Perspect. 22(2):34–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C (1999) The provision of incentives in firms. J. Econom. Literature 37(1):7–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C (2002) The tenuous trade-off between risk and incentives. J. Political Econom. 110(5):1071–1102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rawley E, Simcoe TS (2010) Diversification, diseconomies of scope, and vertical contracting: Evidence from the taxicab industry. Management Sci. 56(9):1534–1550.Link, Google Scholar
• Rivkin J (2000) Imitation of complex strategies. Management Sci. 46(6):824–844.Link, Google Scholar
• Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Sci. 49(3):290–311.Link, Google Scholar
• Semadeni M, Withers MC, Trevis Certo S (2014) The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic Management J. 35(7):1070–1079.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stock JH, Wright JH, Yogo M (2002) A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. 20(4):518–529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Varian HR (1978) Microeconomic Analysis (W. W. Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar