Performance rankings are a widely used motivational tool in sales organizations, yet their effectiveness in influencing important salesperson outcomes remains largely underexplored. Moreover, the impact of presenting different types of information alongside rankings has not been previously investigated. This research, spanning two studies with more than 27,000 salespeople from over 170 firms representing 83 countries, directly addresses this research gap, examining the effects of three distinct information conditions: anonymized performance rankings, identifiable performance rankings, and identifiable rankings with quotas on salesperson quota attainment and turnover. The authors also examine the role of variable compensation share and ranking group size, offering nuanced insights into their moderating effects. The findings reveal that anonymous rankings, while beneficial for quota attainment, increase turnover. In contrast, identifiable rankings coupled with quotas do not significantly improve quota attainment but effectively reduce turnover. The authors find that disclosing performance rankings with salespeople's identities is the sole condition that simultaneously elevates quota attainment and reduces turnover. By delineating these nuances, this research provides new and important implications to several literature streams and equips sales managers with strategic guidance on tailoring the presentation of performance rankings to enhance critical outcomes within the specific context of their organizations.
AghamollaCyrusThakorRichard T. (2022), “Do Mandatory Disclosure Requirements for Private Firms Increase the Propensity of Going Public?” Journal of Accounting Research, 60 (3), 755–804.
2.
AshrafNavaBandieraOrianaLeeScott S. (2014), “Awards Unbundled: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 100, 44–63.
3.
AzmatGhazalaIriberriNagore (2010), “The Importance of Relative Performance Feedback Information: Evidence from A Natural Experiment Using High School Students,” Journal of Public Economics, 94 (7–8), 435–52.
4.
BandieraOrianaBarankayIwanRasulImran (2010), “Social Incentives in the Workplace,” Review of Economic Studies, 77 (2), 417–58.
5.
BandieraOrianaBarankayIwanRasulImran (2013), “Team Incentives: Evidence from a Firm Level Experiment,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 11 (5), 1079–1114.
6.
BarnesChristopher M.HollenbeckJohn R.JundtDustin K.DeRueD. ScottHarmonStephen J. (2011), “Mixing Individual Incentives and Group Incentives: Best of Both Worlds or Social Dilemma?” Journal of Management, 37 (6), 1611–35.
7.
BlumeBrian D.BaldwinTimothy T.RubinRobert S. (2009), “Reactions to Different Types of Forced Distribution Performance Evaluation Systems,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 24 (1), 77–91.
8.
BommarajuRaghuHohenbergSebastian (2018), “Self-Selected Sales Incentives: Evidence of Their Effectiveness, Persistence, Durability, and Underlying Mechanisms,” Journal of Marketing, 82 (5), 106–24.
9.
BoudreauKevin J.LaceteraNicolaLakhaniKarim R. (2011), “Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis,” Management Science, 57 (5), 843–63.
10.
BoudreauKevin J.LakhaniKarim R.MeniettiMichael (2016), “Performance Responses to Competition Across Skill Levels in Rank-Order Tournaments: Field Evidence and Implications for Tournament Design,” RAND Journal of Economics, 47 (1), 140–65.
11.
BourguignonFrançoisFournierMartinGurgandMarc (2007), “Selection Bias Corrections Based on the Multinomial Logit Model: Monte Carlo Comparisons,” Journal of Economic Surveys, 21 (1), 174–205.
12.
BrownKatrina M.WillisB.S.ReidDennis H. (1981), “Differential Effects of Supervisor Verbal Feedback and Feedback Plus Approval on Institutional Staff Performance,” Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 3 (1), 57–68.
13.
BursztynLeonardoJensenRobert (2017), “Social Image and Economic Behavior in the Field: Identifying, Understanding, and Shaping Social Pressure,” Annual Review of Economics, 9, 131–53.
14.
CastillaEmilio J. (2015), “Accounting for the Gap: A Firm Study Manipulating Organizational Accountability and Transparency in Pay Decisions,” Organization Science, 26 (2), 311–33.
CrowellCharles R.AndersonD. ChrisAbelDawn M.SergioJoseph P. (1988), “Task Clarification, Performance Feedback, and Social Praise: Procedures for Improving the Customer Service of Bank Tellers,” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21 (1), 65–71.
21.
D'AgostinoRalph B.Jr. (1998), “Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non-Randomized Control Group,” Statistics in Medicine, 17 (19), 2265–81.
22.
DehejiaRajeev H.WahbaSadek (2002), “Propensity Score-Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 84 (1), 151–61.
23.
FanJianqingImaiKosukeLiuHanNingYangYangXiaolin (2016), Improving Covariate Balancing Propensity Score: A Doubly Robust and Efficient Approach,” technical report, Princeton University.
24.
FestingerLeon (1954), “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,” Human Relations, 7 (2), 117–40.
25.
FongChristianHazlettChadImaiKosuke (2018), “Covariate Balancing Propensity Score for a Continuous Treatment: Application to the Efficacy of Political Advertisements,” Annals of Applied Statistics, 12 (1), 156–77.
26.
FranklinJessica M.RassenJeremy A.AckermannDianaBartelsDorothee B.SchneeweissSebastian (2014), “Metrics for Covariate Balance in Cohort Studies of Causal Effects,” Statistics in Medicine, 33 (10), 1685–99.
27.
FredericksonJames R. (1992), “Relative Performance Information: The Effects of Common Uncertainty and Contract Type on Agent Effort,” Accounting Review, 67 (4), 647–69.
28.
GarciaStephen M.TorAvishalomSchiffTyrone M. (2013), “The Psychology of Competition: A Social Comparison Perspective,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (6), 634–50.
29.
GastorfJohn W.SulsJerry (1978), “Performance Evaluation via Social Comparison: Performance Similarity Versus Related-Attribute Similarity,” Social Psychology, 41 (4), 297–305.
30.
GerberJonathan P.WheelerLaddSulsJerry (2018), “A Social Comparison Theory Meta-Analysis 60+ Years On,” Psychological Bulletin, 144 (2), 177–97.
31.
GillDavidKissováZdenkaLeeJaesunProwseVictoria (2019), “First-Place Loving and Last-Place Loathing: How Rank in the Distribution of Performance Affects Effort Provision,” Management Science, 65 (2), 494–507.
32.
GiumettiGary W.SchroederAmber N.SwitzerFred S.III (2015), “Forced Distribution Rating Systems: When Does ‘Rank and Yank’ Lead to Adverse Impact?” Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (1), 180–93.
33.
GjedremWilliam Gilje (2018), “Relative Performance Feedback: Effective or Dismaying?” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 74, 1–16.
34.
GoethalsGeorge R.DarleyJohn M. (1977), “Social Comparison Theory: An Attributional Approach,” in Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, SulsJerry M.MillerRichard L., eds. Hemisphere, 259–78.
35.
GrantAdam M.ShandellMarissa S. (2022), “Social Motivation at Work: The Organizational Psychology of Effort for, Against, and with Others,” Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 301–26.
36.
GreenbergJerald (1986), “Determinants of Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluations,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (2), 340–42.
37.
GroteRichard C. (2005), Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management Work. Harvard Business School Press.
38.
GuoShenyangFraserMark W. (2014), Propensity Score Analysis: Statistical Methods and Applications. Sage.
39.
HabelJohannesAlaviSaschaLinsenmayerKim (2021), “Variable Compensation and Salesperson Health,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (3), 130–49.
40.
HannanR. LynnMcPheeGregory P.NewmanAndrew H.TafkovIvo D. (2013), “The Effect of Relative Performance Information on Performance and Effort Allocation in a Multi-Task Environment,” Accounting Review, 88 (2), 553–75.
41.
HartmannFrankSchreckPhilipp (2018), “Rankings, Performance, and Sabotage: The Moderating Effects of Target Setting,” European Accounting Review, 27 (2), 363–82.
42.
HartmannFrankSlapničarSergeja (2012), “The Perceived Fairness of Performance Evaluation: The Role of Uncertainty,” Management Accounting Research, 23 (1), 17–33.
43.
HazelsBethSasseCraig M. (2008), “Forced Ranking: A Review,” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 73 (2), 35–39.
44.
HolmstromBengtMilgromPaul (1994), “The Firm as an Incentive System,” American Economic Review, 84 (4), 972–91.
45.
HomburgChristianSchymaTheresa R.HohenbergSebastianAtefiYasharRuhnauRobin-Christopher M. (2024), “‘Coopetition’ in the Presence of Team and Individual Incentives: Evidence from the Advice Network of a Sales Organization,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52 (2), 306–28.
46.
HumphreysNeilRobinDonald P.ReidenbachR. EricMoakDonald L. (1993), “The Ethical Decision Making Process of Small Business Owner/Managers and Their Customers,” Journal of Small Business Management, 31 (3), 9–17.
47.
ImaiKosukeRatkovicMarc (2014), “Covariate Balancing Propensity Score,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76 (1), 243–63.
48.
ImbensGuido W. (2000), “The Role of the Propensity Score in Estimating Dose-Response Functions,” Biometrika, 87 (3), 706–10.
49.
IngramThomas N.LaForgeRaymond W.AvilaRamon A.SchweperCharles H.Jr.WilliamsMichael R. (2024), Sales Management: Analysis and Decision Making, 11th ed. Routledge.
JiaoQianKeChangxiaLiuYang (2022), “When to Disclose the Number of Contestants: Theory and Experimental Evidence,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 193, 146–60.
52.
JohnsonDouglas A.DickinsonAlyce M.HuitemaBradley E. (2008), “The Effects of Objective Feedback on Performance When Individuals Receive Fixed and Individual Incentive Pay,” Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20 (3–4), 53–74.
53.
JordanAlexander H.AudiaPino G. (2012), “Self-Enhancement and Learning from Performance Feedback,” Academy of Management Review, 37 (2), 211–31.
KramerStephanMaasVictor S.Van RinsumMarcel (2016), “Relative Performance Information, Rank Ordering and Employee Performance: A Research Note,” Management Accounting Research, 33, 16–24.
56.
KrishnaVijayMorganJohn (1998), “The Winner-Take-All Principle in Small Tournaments,” in Advances in Applied Microeconomics, BayeMichael R., ed. JAI Press, 61–74.
57.
KrugerJustinGilovichThomas (1999), “Actions, Intentions, and Trait Assessment: The Road to Self-Enhancement Is Paved with Good Intention,” unpublished manuscript, Cornell University.
58.
KuhnenCamelia M.TymulaAgnieszka (2012), “Feedback, Self-Esteem, and Performance in Organizations,” Management Science, 58 (1), 94–113.
59.
LaLondeRobert J. (1986), “Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data,” American Economic Review, 76 (4), 604–20.
60.
LepoutreJanHeeneAimé (2006), “Investigating the Impact of Firm Size on Small Business Social Responsibility: A Critical Review,” Journal of Business Ethics, 67 (3), 257–73.
LimNoahAhearneMichael J.HamSung H. (2009), “Designing Sales Contests: Does the Prize Structure Matter?” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (3), 356–71.
63.
LinD.Y.WeiL.J. (1989), “The Robust Inference for the Cox Proportional Hazards Model,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84 (408), 1074–78.
McCaffreyDaniel F.RidgewayGregMorralAndrew R. (2004), “Propensity Score Estimation with Boosted Regression for Evaluating Causal Effects in Observational Studies,” Psychological Methods, 9 (4), 403–25.
66.
MurphyWilliam H.DacinPeter A.FordNeil M. (2004), “Sales Contest Effectiveness: An Examination of Sales Contest Design Preferences of Field Sales Forces,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (2), 127–43.
67.
MurthyUday S.SchaferBrad A. (2011), “The Effects of Relative Performance Information and Framed Information Systems Feedback on Performance in A Production Task,” Journal of Information Systems, 25 (1), 159–84.
68.
NitzanIritLibaiBarak (2011), “Social Effects on Customer Retention,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (6), 24–38.
69.
Oinas-KukkonenHarriHarjumaaMarja (2009), “Persuasive Systems Design: Key Issues, Process Model, and System Features,” Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24 (1), Article 28.
70.
PendletonAndrewRobinsonAndrew (2017), “The Productivity Effects of Multiple Pay Incentives,” Economic and Industrial Democracy, 38 (4), 588–608.
71.
PuhaniPatrick (2000), “The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique,” Journal of Economic Surveys, 14 (1), 53–68.
72.
SchleicherDeidra J.BullRebecca A.GreenStephen G. (2009), “Rater Reactions to Forced Distribution Rating Systems,” Journal of Management, 35 (4), 899–927.
73.
SchlenkerBarry R.LearyMark R. (1982a), “Audiences’ Reactions to Self-Enhancing, Self-Denigrating, and Accurate Self-Presentations,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18 (1), 89–104.
74.
SchlenkerBarry R.LearyMark R. (1982b), “Social Anxiety and Self-Presentation: A Conceptualization Model,” Psychological Bulletin, 92 (3), 641–69.
75.
SimanTov-NachlieliIlanitBambergerPeter (2021), “Pay Communication, Justice, and Affect: The Asymmetric Effects of Process and Outcome Pay Transparency on Counterproductive Workplace Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 106 (2), 230–49.
SongHummyTuckerAnita L.MurrellKaren L.VinsonDavid R. (2018), “Closing the Productivity Gap: Improving Worker Productivity Through Public Relative Performance Feedback and Validation of Best Practices,” Management Science, 64 (6), 2628–49.
78.
SteenburghThomasAhearneMichael (2012), “Motivating Salespeople: What Really Works,” Harvard Business Review, 90 (7–8), 70–5.
79.
StipekDeborah J. (1987), “Emotional Responses to Objective and Normative Performance Feedback,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8 (2), 183–95.
80.
SulsJerryWheelerLadd (2017), “On the Trail of Social Comparison,” in The Oxford Handbook of Social Influence, HarkinsStephen G.WilliamsKipling D.BurgerJerry, eds. Oxford University Press, 71–86.
81.
SunderSarangKumarV.GorecznyAshleyMaurerTodd (2017), “Why Do Salespeople Quit? An Empirical Examination of Own and Peer Effects on Salesperson Turnover Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (3), 381–97.
82.
ThomasEdwin J.FinkClinton F. (1963), “Effects of Group Size,” Psychological Bulletin, 60 (4), 371–84.
83.
WheelerLaddSulsJerry (2020), “A History of Social Comparison Theory,” in Social Comparison, Judgment, and Behavior, Jerry Suls, Rebecca L. Collins, and Ladd Wheeler, eds. Oxford Academic, 5–31.
84.
WoodJoanne V. (1989), “Theory and Research Concerning Social Comparisons of Personal Attributes,” Psychological Bulletin, 106 (2), 231–48.
85.
WoodJoanne V.TaylorKathryn L. (1991), “Serving Self-Relevant Goals Through Social Comparison,” in Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research, SulsJerryAshby WillsThomas, eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 23–49.
86.
YoganathanDuwarakaSangaralingamKajanan (2015), “Designing Fitness Apps Using Persuasive Technology: A Text Mining Approach,” PACIS 2015 Proceedings, 40, https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2015/40/.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
