Who Is More Useful? The Impact of Performance Incentives on Work and Personal Relationships

Julia  Hur; Alice  Lee-Yoon; Ashley V. Whillans

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2018

Who Is More Useful? The Impact of Performance Incentives on Work and Personal Relationships

by Julia Hur, Alice Lee-Yoon and Ashley V. Whillans

Abstract

Employees today report being too busy to talk to their friends and family, even though the number of hours they work has remained relatively constant over the last five decades. We highlight incentive systems as one underappreciated factor contributing to this phenomenon and explore the role of incentives in shaping how employees think about their different social relationships. Results from one archival dataset, one panel survey, and two experiments (n = 132,139) show that when employees are paid for performance, they prioritize spending time socializing with work colleagues at the sacrifice of spending time with friends and family. We further document goal instrumentality as a mechanism for these results: employees who receive performance incentives perceive their work ties as highly instrumental in achieving their goals. These findings provide the first empirical evidence that incentives shape employees’ social interactions within and outside of work, potentially providing a novel explanation for the dissolution of familial and personal ties in many developed countries.

Keywords: Performance incentives; work-family boundary management; instrumentality; emotions; lonelines; Employees; Performance; Motivation and Incentives; Work-Life Balance; Emotions;

Language: English

Format: Print

59 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Hur, Julia, Alice Lee-Yoon, and Ashley V. Whillans. "Who Is More Useful? The Impact of Performance Incentives on Work and Personal Relationships." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-050, October 2018. (Revised December 2018.)

Conventional wisdom says you should ask your colleagues for feedback. However, research suggests that feedback often has no (or even a negative) impact on our performance. This is because the feedback we receive is often too vague—it fails to highlight what we can improve on or how to improve. New research suggests a better approach. Across four experiments—including a field experiment conducted in an executive education classroom—researchers found that people received more effective input when they asked for advice rather than feedback.

When making major life decisions—such as choosing what to do after graduation—is it better to prioritize time or money? In a pre-registered longitudinal study of 1,232 graduating university students, respondents who valued time over money chose more intrinsically rewarding activities and were happier one year after graduation. These results remained significant controlling for baseline happiness, potential confounds such as materialism and socioeconomic status, and when using alternative model specifications. These findings extend prior research by showing that the tendency to value time over money is not only predictive of daily consumer choices but also of major life decisions. Additionally, this research clarifies the direction of the observed associations between valuing time and money and happiness, showing that valuing time over money uniquely contributes to well-being, in part by encouraging intrinsic motivation. Together, this work sheds new light on whether, when, and how valuing time shapes happiness.

When looking to improve workplace performance, people often seek third-party input by asking for feedback. However, we propose that asking for feedback might not be the most effective way of soliciting critical and actionable input. We offer a simple yet powerful alternative: ask for advice instead. Across four experiments (N=1,438), including a field experiment, we show that people offer more critical and actionable input when they are asked to provide advice (versus feedback)—even when they are asked to provide comments on identical output. When asked to provide feedback (versus advice), givers focus too much on evaluating the recipient, which undermines their ability to generate constructive (i.e. critical and actionable) input. Our findings suggest that framing feedback provision as advice provision may be a promising way of soliciting constructive third-party input.

Faculty & Research

Who Is More Useful? The Impact of Performance Incentives on Work and Personal Relationships

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author