The Influence of Incentive Structure on Group Performance in Assembly Lines and Teams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Modern manufacturing settings increasingly rely upon workgroups; however, evidence concerning the best fit among incentive structure, production environment, and group performance has been mixed. Young et al. (1993) examine the effect of group incentives on group performance in cooperative and noncooperative environments. Although theory and evidence from practice indicate that group incentives combined with cooperation should result in higher group performance, their results were contrary to this prediction. To further explore this issue, we examine the effect of individual, group, and mixed incentive structures on group performance in assembly lines and teams. We find no difference in group performance depending on incentive structure for assembly lines; however, group performance is higher under group incentives for teams. Supplemental analysis indicates group incentives support the teams’ ability to implement beneficial task strategies and although mixed incentives are theoretically appealing, they may send confusing signals to employees about where to direct their effort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it