Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between-Worker Variability in Output Under Piece-Rate Versus Hourly Pay Systems

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study re-examined the earlier conclusion by F. Schmidt and J. Hunter (1983) that incentive pay reduces between-worker differences in output, based on their finding that the standard deviation of employee output as a percentage of mean output (SDp) is smaller under piece-rate compensation than under hourly pay. Results of the present study indicate that while the average observed SDp is larger under hourly conditions, this difference disappears after correcting for unreliability in the output measures. It appears that the difference in mean observed SDp values is due to the fact that there is more measurement error in measures of output for employees working under nonincentive-based compensation conditions. This finding suggests that incentive pay may reduce random response variability in employee output but does not reduce differences between employees in work effort and motivation. This finding also suggests that type of compensation system does not affect the percentage output increases produced through improved selection. These findings have implications for theories of job performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Allen, S. J. (1988). A method for setting incentive standards to meet a specified mean wage. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 29, 84–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, S. J., & Konzel, P. (1989). Design of wage incentives systems for data entry operations. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Barnes, R. M. (1937). Time and motion study. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R. M. (1958). Time and motion study (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, E., & Kacser, P. (1963). A comparative analysis of incentive plans. Journal of Industrial Economics, 11, 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brogden, H. E. (1949). When testing pays off. Personnel Psychology, 2, 171–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P., Gasser, M. B., & Oswald, F. L. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance variability. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 258–299). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deadrick, D. L., & Madigan, R. M. (1990). Dynamic criteria revisited: A longitudinal study of performance stability and predictive validity. Personnel Psychology, 43, 717–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dockstader, S. L., Nebeker, D. M., Nocella, J., & Shumate, E. C. (1980). Incentive management training: Use of behavioral principles for productivity enhancement. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, P. M. (1920). A study of output in silk weaving during the winter months. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 9). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elton, P. M. (1922). An analysis of the individual differences in the output of silk-weavers. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 17). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florence, P. S. (1924). Economics of fatigue and unrest. New York: Henry Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, H. E. (1955). Statistics in psychology and education (4th ed.). New York: Longmans and Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselli, E. E., & Haire, M. (1960). The validation of selection tests in the light of the dynamic character of criteria. Personnel Psychology, 13, 225–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giese, W. J. (1948). How better selection can reduce factory costs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 344–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmark, J., & Hopkins, M. D. (1920). Comparison of an eight-hour plant and a ten-hour plant. Public Health Bulletin (No. 101). Washington, DC.

  • Health of Munitions Workers Committee. (1918). Industrial health and efficiency. Final Report, Ministry of Munitions. London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office. Reprinted by U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as Bulletin No. 249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw, E. M., & Holman, P. (1933). Manual dexterity—Effects of training. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 67). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E. (1980). Test validation for 12,000 jobs: An application of synthetic validity and validity generalization to the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB). Washington, DC: U.S. Employment Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Judiesch, M. K. (1990). Individual differences in output variability as a function of job complexity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judiesch, M. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Mount, M. K. (1992). Estimates of the dollar value of employee output in utility analyses: An empirical test of two theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 234–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilbridge, M. D. (1960). Statistical indicators of the continuing effectiveness of wage incentive applications. Journal of Industrial Economics, 9, 83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R., Spady, R., & Weiss, A. (1991). Factors affecting the output and quit propensities of production workers. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 929–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawshe, C. H., & McGinley, A. D. (1951). Job performance criteria studies: I. The job performance of proofreaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 316–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazear, E. P. (1996). Performance pay and productivity (NBER Working Paper 5672). National Bureau of Economic Ressearch.

  • Mitchell, D. J. B., Lewin, D., & Lawler, E. E., III (1990). Alternative pay systems, firm performance, and productivity. In A. S. Blinder (Ed.), Paying for productivity: A look at the evidence. pp. 15–88. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukherjee, B. N., & Sreekumar, M. A. (1968). Personality characteristics and intraindividual variability in industrial output. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 4, 462–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nalbantian, H. R. (1987). Incentive compensation in perspective. In H. R. Nalbantian (Ed.), Incentives, cooperation, and risk sharing (pp. 3–43). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Dell, C., & McAdams, J. (1987). People, Performance, and pay. Houston, TX: American Productivity Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passell, P. (1996, 6/16/96). Paid by the widget, and proud: How piecework could gain refavor. New York Times.

  • Peck, R. F., & Parson, J. W. (1956). Personality factors in work output: Four studies of factory workers. Personnel Psychology, 9, 49–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambo, W. W., Chomiak, A. M., & Price, J. M. (1983). Consistency of performance under stable conditions of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 78–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger, F. J., Dickson, W. J., & Wright, H. A. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, N. A., & Sales, S. M. (1966). Behavior in a nonexperiment: the effects of behavioral field research on the work performance of factory employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 165–171.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rothe, H. F. (1946). Output rates among butter wrappers: II. Frequency distributions and an hypothesis regarding the “restriction of output.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 320–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothe, H. F. (1947). Output rates among machine operators: I. Distributions and their reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 31, 484–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothe, H. F. (1951). Output rates among chocolate dippers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 94–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothe, H. F. (1958). Output rates among coil winders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42, 182–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothe, H. F. (1978). Output rates among industrial employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 40–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothe, H. F., & Nye, C. T. (1959). Output rates among machine operators: II. Consistency related to methods of pay. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 417–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothe, H. F., & Nye, C. T. (1961). Output rates among machine operators: III. A hourly situation in two levels of business activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, D. F. (1952). Quota restrictions and goldbricking in a machine shop. American Journal of Sociology, 57, 427–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, L. M., & Latham, F. P. (1982). Employee reactions to continuous and variable ratio reinforcement schedules involving a monetary incentive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 506–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1983). Individual differences in productivity: An empirical test of estimates derived from studies of selection procedure utility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 407–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of a causal model of processes determining job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 1, 199–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R., & Muldrow, T. (1979). Impact of valid selection procedures on workforce productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 609–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Outerbridge, A. N., & Trattner, M. H. (1986). The impact of job selection methods on size, productivity and payroll cost of the federal workforce: An empirically based demonstration. Personnel Psychology, 39, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K. (1982). Assessing the economic impact of personnel programs on productivity. Personnel Psychology, 35, 333–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (1989). Some British data concerning the standard deviation of performance. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 189–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiffin, J. (1952). Industrial psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • U. S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (1977). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Employment Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Validity Information Exchange. (1955). Personnel Psychology, 8, 501–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, H. M. (1923). A note on the causes of output limitation. Occupational Psychology, 1, 182–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Smalley, M. D., & Rothe, H. F. (1991). Productivity consistency of foundry chippers and grinders: A 6-year field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 134–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viteles, M. S. (1932). Industrial psychology. Norton: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wembridge, H. A. (1923). Experiment and statistics in the selection of employees: Methods used in the selection of machine operators in a clothing plant. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 18, 600–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, H. C. (1938). The effects of conditions of artificial lighting on the performance of worsted weavers. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 81). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, H. C., & Adams, S. (1932). The effects of noise on the performance of weavers. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 65). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S., & Fraser, J. A. (1925). Studies in repetitive work with special reference to restpauses. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 32). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S., & Fraser, J. A. (1928). The comparative effects of variety and uniformity in work. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 52). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S. (1920). Individual differences in output in the cotton industry. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 7). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S. (1923). Variations in efficiency in cotton weaving. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 23). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S. (1927). An experimental study of a repetitive process. British Journal of Psychology, 17, 192–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S. (1930). Maximum capacity and average achievement. British Journal of Psychology, 17, 192–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S. (1934). Incentives in repetitive work: A practical experiment in a factory. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 69). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S., & Langdon, J. N. (1932). Inspection processes in industry. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 63). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, S., & Weston, H. C. (1920). Some observations on bobbin winding. Industrial Health Research Board (Report No. 8). London, Great Britain: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wysocki, B. (1995). Unstable pay becomes even more common. Wall Street Journal, (Dec 4), A, 1:5.

  • Yetton, P. W. (1979). The efficiency of a piecework incentive payment system. Journal of Management Studies, 16, 253–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1975). Consequences of reinforcement schedules and incentive magnitudes for employee performance: Problems encountered in an industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 294–298.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baruch College, City University of New York, USA

    Michael K. Judiesch

  2. University of Iowa, USA

    Frank L. Schmidt

Authors
  1. Michael K. Judiesch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank L. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Judiesch, M.K., Schmidt, F.L. Between-Worker Variability in Output Under Piece-Rate Versus Hourly Pay Systems. Journal of Business and Psychology 14, 529–552 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022932628185

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022932628185

Keywords

Search

Navigation