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
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 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

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

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off