NONPROFITS IN THE FIELD: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEER MONITORING AND SABOTAGE

NONPROFITS IN THE FIELD: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEER MONITORING AND SABOTAGE Two types of intrinsically motivated workers are considered: good workers care about the mission of an organization, whereas bad workers derive pleasure from destructive behavior. Compared to the case with only good workers, the mission‐oriented sector has to resort to higher monitoring to deal with the threat of sabotage. When standard monitoring is not possible, peer monitoring might deter bad workers from entering the nonprofit sector but reduces output due to free riding and because workers require higher compensation to work in teams. Nonprofits implement peer monitoring only if the expected damage that bad workers can inflict is larger than the loss of productivity due to teamwork. For senior staff with high reservation utility, they turn a blind eye on serious sabotage if the likelihood of hiring a bad worker is perceived as small. But they almost systematically implement peer monitoring for junior staff. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics Wiley

NONPROFITS IN THE FIELD: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PEER MONITORING AND SABOTAGE

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/nonprofits-in-the-field-an-economic-analysis-of-peer-monitoring-and-LG0wmCuWOF
Publisher
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
Copyright
Journal compilation © 2018 CIRIEC
ISSN
1370-4788
eISSN
1467-8292
D.O.I.
10.1111/apce.12197
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Two types of intrinsically motivated workers are considered: good workers care about the mission of an organization, whereas bad workers derive pleasure from destructive behavior. Compared to the case with only good workers, the mission‐oriented sector has to resort to higher monitoring to deal with the threat of sabotage. When standard monitoring is not possible, peer monitoring might deter bad workers from entering the nonprofit sector but reduces output due to free riding and because workers require higher compensation to work in teams. Nonprofits implement peer monitoring only if the expected damage that bad workers can inflict is larger than the loss of productivity due to teamwork. For senior staff with high reservation utility, they turn a blind eye on serious sabotage if the likelihood of hiring a bad worker is perceived as small. But they almost systematically implement peer monitoring for junior staff.

Journal

Annals of Public and Cooperative EconomicsWiley

Published: Jan 1, 2018

Keywords: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from Google Scholar, PubMed
Create lists to organize your research
Export lists, citations
Access to DeepDyve database
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off