Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-nzzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T22:21:41.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solving coordination failure with “all-or-none” group-level incentives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

John Hamman ,
Scott Rick  and
Roberto A. Weber
John Hamman
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Scott Rick
Affiliation:
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Roberto A. Weber*
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Coordinating activity among members is an important problem faced by organizations. When firms, or units within firms, are stuck in bad equilibria, managers may turn to the temporary use of simple incentives—flat punishments or rewards—in an attempt to transition the firm or unit to a more efficient equilibrium. We investigate the use of incentives in the context of the “minimum-effort,” or “weak-link,” coordination game. We allow groups to reach the inefficient equilibrium and then implement temporary, flat, “all-or-none” incentives to encourage coordination on more efficient equilibria. We vary whether incentives are positive (rewards) or negative (penalties), whether they have substantial or nominal monetary value, and whether they are targeted to a specific outcome (the efficient equilibrium) or untargeted (apply to more than one outcome). Overall, incentives of all kinds are effective at improving coordination while they are in place, but there is little long-term persistent benefit of incentives—once incentives are removed, groups tend to return to the inefficient outcome. We find some differences between different kinds of incentives. Finally, we contrast our results to other recent work demonstrating greater long-term effectiveness of temporary incentives.

Keywords

CoordinationIncentivesOrganizationsExperiments

JEL classification

D29: Other C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 10 , Issue 3: Special issue of Experimental Economics in honor of Raymond C. Battalio: Coordination Games , September 2007 , pp. 285 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, K. A. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Battalio, R., Samuelson, L., & Van Huyck, J. (2001). Optimization Incentives and coordination failure in laboratory stag hunt games. Econometrica, 69(3), 749–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berninghaus, S., & Ehrhart, K. (1998). Time horizon and equilibrium selection in tacit coordination games: Experimental results. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 37(2), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, A., & Ortmann, A. (2007). The effects of costless pre-play communication: Experimental evidence from games with Pareto-ranked equilibria. Journal of Economic Theory, 132(1), 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, G., Gneezy, U., & Nagel, R. (2002). The effect of intergroup competition on group coordination: An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 41(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Cooper, D. J. (2005). It's what you say not what you pay: An experimental study of manager-employee relationships in overcoming coordination failure. Unpublished manuscript, Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., & Cooper, D. J. (2006). A change would do you good…An experimental study on how to overcome coordination failure in organizations. American Economic Review, 96, 669–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cachon, G. P., & Camerer, C. F. (1996). Loss-avoidance and forward induction in experimental coordination games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(1), 165–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F., & Knez, M. (1994). Creating ‘expectational assets’ in the laboratory: ‘Weakest-link’ coordination games. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 101–119.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, A., Schotter, A., & Sopher, B. (2001). Talking ourselves to efficiency: Coordination in intergenerational minimum games with private, almost common and common knowledge of advice. Unpublished manuscript. Washington State University.Google Scholar
Charness, G. (2000). Self-serving cheap talk and credibility: A test of Aumann's conjecture. Games and Economic Behavior, 33(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, V. P. (1991). An ‘evolutionary’ interpretation of Van Huyck, Battalio, and Beil's experimental results on coordination. Games and Economic Behavior, 3(1), 25–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, V. P. (1995). Adaptive dynamics in coordination games. Econometrica, 63(1), 103–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugar, S. (2005). The effects of non-monetary sanctions and non-monetary rewards on coordination: Experimental evidence from the minimum action game. Unpublished manuscript. University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Gaechter, S. (2000). Self-governing solutions to collective action problems: Rewards versus punishments. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittell, J. H. (2001). Supervisory span, relational coordination and flight departure performance: A reassessment of post-bureaucracy theory. Organization Science, 12(4), 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J., & Holt, C. (2005). An experimental study of costly coordination. Games and Economic Behavior, 2, 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J.C., & Selten, R. (1988). A general theory of equilibrium selection in games. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. (1983). From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods. Public Choice, 41(3), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.Google Scholar
Knez, M., & Simester, D. (2001). Firm-wide incentives and mutual monitoring at continental airlines. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(4), 743–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, M. (1993). The O-ring theory of economic development. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 551–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nanda, A. (1999). Implementing organizational change. In Pina, M., Cunha, E., & Marques, C. A. (Eds.), Readings in organizational science: Organizational change in a changing Context. Lisbon: ISPA.Google Scholar
Rydval, O., & Ortmann, A. (2005). Loss avoidance as selection principle: Evidence from simple stag-hunt games. Economic Letters, 88(1), 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sefton, M., Shupp, R., & Walker, J. (2002). The effect of rewards and sanctions in provision of public goods. Unpublished manuscript, Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Sutter, M., Haigner, S., & Kocher, M. G. (2006). Choosing the stick or the carrot?—Endogenous institutional choice in social dilemma situations. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Van Huyck, J., Battalio, R., & Beil, R. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–248.Google Scholar
Weber, R. A. (2000) Organizational coordination: A game-theoretic view. Unpublished manuscript. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Weber, R. A. (2006). Managing growth to achieve efficient coordination in large groups. American Economic Review, 96(1), 114–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R. A., Rottenstreich, Y., Camerer, C.F., & Knez, M. (2001). The illusion of leadership: misattribution of cause in coordination games. Organization Science, 12(5), 582–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar