Professional motivation and the quantity–quality trade-off

Abstract

How can professionals be motivated to do better quality work? This paper examines this question through a unique lab-in-the-field experiment on more than 100 judges in a lower middle income country, Tajikistan. I test how judges respond both to monetary bonuses and to anonymous monitoring by peers of the quality of their work. I find that the provision of bonuses leads to much lower quality than in a control group where bonuses are not given. However, offering a bonus while also making work visible to peers motivates the judges to increase both quantity and quality. Random peer monitoring of work is likely triggering concerns about self-image which mitigate the negative effect of bonuses on quality. The results have important implications in labor market settings where strict monitoring of quality is not possible.