Thursday, December 12, 2013

HR Pros Ignore Economics at Their Own Peril

While the students in my personnel economics course were taking their exam recently, I was browsing my twitter timeline. In close succession, two tweets jumped out because of their direct relevance to this course. The subject of each tweet was a failed HR policy, but after only a half-semester of personnel economics, every student in my course should have been able to easily predict the risks of these HR policies based on a basic understanding of the economics behind human behavior. These are two more examples, then, of the importance of equipping HR professionals with an understanding of economics principles.

Here is first tweet:







This story from Salon (Ayn Rand-loving CEO destroys his empire), describes how the CEO of Sears, former fund manager Eddie Lampert, ruined this venerable retailer:

Lampert took the myth that humans perform best when acting selfishly as gospel, pitting Sears company managers against each other in a kind of Lord of the Flies death match. This, he believed, would cause them to act rationally and boost performance.

My students should instantly recognize this as a form of an economic tournament. Tournament theory in personnel economics reveals that the drive to win an economic contest can motivate higher levels of productive effort, but also provides an incentive to engage in influence behaviors (that is, unproductive activities that enhance one's own chance of winning at the expense of organizational goals). So the result was predictable:

Instead of enhancing Sears' bottom line, the heads of various divisions began to undermine each other and fight tooth and claw for the profits of their individual fiefdoms at the expense of the overall brand.

And then the second tweet:








This story from the Daily Mail (Desperate delivery men ditch your Christmas gifts in the BIN) begins with

Couriers paid per parcel they deliver are desperately dumping Christmas gifts in wheelie bins [a wheeled trash can in America], under doormats and in plain sight of the street....These workers, thousands of whom are temporarily employed at this time of year, are given as little as five minutes to drive to an address and drop off a parcel before starting the next order. They are expected to deliver 100 packages in a day -- and will get between 80p to £1 for each one successfully left (though drivers in rural areas will get slightly more). Many are self-employed and have to use their own car or van, and must then deduct all their costs, including fuel, from their pay. They are paid nothing if they leave a 'Sorry you're not in' card. If they have to return the following morning, this trip is usually made in addition to the parcels they need to deliver that day.

This is an example of a simple piece-rate performance-based compensation plan. Basic theorizing in personnel economics indicates that such incentives can be a good motivator. But a basic understanding of economics principles also teaches us to be cautious because poorly-designed incentives can lead to adverse outcomes by self-interested workers as they respond powerfully, perhaps over-powerfully, to these incentives--for example, by pursuing quantity at the expense of quality.

Again, the results of this case are predictable to anyone with an understanding of the economics of human behavior:

As a result, delivery men feel under pressure to find any means possible to empty their vehicles. In some cases, parcels are being abandoned in dustbins -- only for them to be emptied by the bin men. They have been thrown over fences and locked gates, chucked out of moving vans, left in the rain, put in plain sight by a front door, wedged underneath cars parked in driveways and badly hidden under bushes and between shrubs. It means that parcels frequently disappear or arrive damaged.

As both of these unfortunate cases illustrate, it is important that HR professionals develop an understanding of basic economics principles and how they apply to HR issues. This is the domain of personnel economics. As in much of economics, the models used in personnel economics research can seem quite stylized to students and HR practitioners. There are only one or two types of workers, there are only one or two types of tasks. Effort directly yields saleable output either with or without a random error term. And then graphs (or worse, equations!) are used to find optimal outcomes where marginal cost equals marginal benefit. And so forth.

It can be difficult to grasp these stylized models if one tries to understand them by searching for direct examples from real-world applications. My advice is to instead try to understand these models at face value. They are meant to be stylized portrayals of key issues, not literal reflections of real-world complexities. In this way, the key results are clearer, rather than clouded by confounding complexities.

Once this understanding is achieved, then the critical step is to apply the insights in real-world settings. So the value of personnel economics for HR professionals is not in the literal application of stylized economic models; rather, the goal is to develop the ability to translate the insights of the models to real-world applications in ways that reflect a nuanced understanding of employee and employer behavior. The Sears example is not a literal application of a simple tournament theory model, but the insights generated by tournament theory provide important warnings about the behaviors that would be expected to result. The package delivery example also has complexities beyond a basic economics model--there are issues of training, monitoring, bonuses, temporary work--but again, the insights generated by a stylized model greatly help us understand what happened in this messier case.

With that said, it is important to appreciate not only the power of personnel economics, but also the limitations. There are other factors that also help us better understand what happened in these cases. For example, in the Sears case, managers were humilated and spied on. As insightfully noted by the Salon article,

Employees are not just competitive beings -- they benefit from cooperating with each other and perform better when they are respected, rather than beaten down and driven by fear.

So the goal of developing an understanding of economics principles for HR professionals should not be to provide the basis for a dogmatic application of stylized economic theories--the two cases here clearly demonstrate the pitfalls of that approach. But these cases also illustrate that HR professionals should only ignore economics principles at their own peril. Ultimately, workers are very complex beings driven by economic, psychological, social, and other concerns. So HR professionals must develop sophisticated ways of thinking in order to analyze real situations and design policies in a holistic way. This includes, but should not be limited to, thinking rooted in economics.

50 comments:

  1. wow, perfect article with perfect examples and explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Two very interesting examples of how economic incentive drove workers toward their own self-interest rather than benefit to the organization.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Treat your employee right and they will take care of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true! i would add... that sounds that many are treating employees and machines rather than human beings and therefore the result is lack of respect for others...

      Delete
  4. Pitching one against the other has rarely produced results that contribute towards an organisation's betterment holistically.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Employees of the month photos are often posted in high traffic areas in organizations. Such as worker cafeterias and reception entrances. Many employers honor such contest winners as incentives to other workers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. These are great examples of good ideas, in theory and how quickly they can go wrong, when human behavior isn't factored into the policy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very interesting article. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  8. wow, perfect article with perfect examples and explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A number of lessons to learn.Human nature is unpredictable!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Found articulation for a recent experience at work I had. When workers are self-motivated, would readily cooperate, designing tournaments and pitting them against each other really ruins it!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Like I always say, You need to give respect in order to be respected.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is important to understand that each employee is unique and every company is unique even different branches/offices within the same company are unique. There are many variables and needs to accomplish goals therefore it is important for companies and managers to be open minded but maintain structure. Balance is needed be operate a trustworthy organization with trustworthy employees. I believe it is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very Good. Employees need to be respected and motivated to do well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Very good examples that show that incentives can have negative impact also. Well written.It is important to think carefully before any incentive is given as it can back fire also.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I truly appreciated, and can relate, to the many examples provided within the article. May very well serve as a wake-up call for some manangers; and how to properly treat, respect, and motivate employees.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think it is intelligent to use the human's competitive nature to help motivate them and help them from being opportunistic, bored, and as well as taking advantage of the corporation

    ReplyDelete
  17. Great information in both cases.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Incentives as explained in your article are very true killers when used in the sales part of an organization. Sales only bothers for items that will add to their incentive or bonus and not to the quality for a customer. Sadly this way of (sales) business is very dominant within my company.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Incentives as explained in your article are very true killers when used in the sales part of an organization. Sales only bothers for items that will add to their incentive or bonus and not to the quality for a customer. Sadly this way of (sales) business is very dominant within my company.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I kept thinking back to the days of working in an Recruiting firm, how you had minimum metrics to keep your job, but everyone undercut each other because everything was a competition for the paid for trip and the quarterly bonuses.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well said! Workers like the humans they are are psychological and emotional beings. Pitch them against each other and those who feel beaten down are demoralized and thus might not be able to perform to full capacity - then you don't get the best out of them. Thoroughly thought up and designed incentives are truly important indeed for better productivity aligned towards organizational goals. Thank you for this piece.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wells Fargo Bank firing employees after being over incentivized is an example of a corporate backfire.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think that employees are influenced very strongly by positive reinforcement and that these initiatives lead to higher productivity

    ReplyDelete
  25. Interesting article with real life examples that drives the message down quiet clearly. It seems to though ignoring personnel economics by HR managers is not "ignoring" in the real sense but making an alternative choice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Professor Budd, I am really trying to understand that if I am applying any theory of Economics in my organization, should I make it completely transparent with the participants (how to achieve it?) I guess the proper implementation of the HR policy should be molded as per the culture of the company and then implemented.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Very interesting. Economics affects all aspects of living including corporate existence and intrigues.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Good read. Spelling mistake found, achieved is spelled wrongly as acheved. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Very interesting and with practical examples

    ReplyDelete
  31. It is good example for using human resource polices thank you

    ReplyDelete
  32. Interesting article with great examples. Thank you for sharing it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Great incentives examples of what can go wrong, need to strike a balance between economic insurance - Fixed Pay and incentive Variable pay. Too much incentives on say quarterly sales results in unethical sales impacting corporate reputation and undermining brand value. My Employers have recently put a cap on Sales Incentive at 35% of total remuneration and for GM level 25%. Other long term incentives help e.g. stock options.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ayn Rand...amazing that even in my nonprofit, human services organization there are management devotees of her philosophies

    ReplyDelete
  35. This was a great article. Great examples on incentives on what can go wrong, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  36. it's amazing to see how much more we need to learn about people's behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  37. incentives are great if it is well managed and monitored.

    ReplyDelete
  38. True examples, employees exploitation also leading to poor customer service. Cheap or seasonal labor can be changed easily but since the service is impacted heavily, negatively, the whole process should be managed properly including employee's hard work appreciation.

    ReplyDelete