Deadlines Versus Continuous Incentives: Evidence from the Patent Office / Michael D. Frakes, Melissa F. Wasserman.
Material type:![Text](/opac-tmpl/lib/famfamfam/BK.png)
- D03
- J33
- K0
- O34
- Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers
Item type | Home library | Collection | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Working Paper | Biblioteca Digital | Colección NBER | nber w32066 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Not For Loan |
January 2024.
A quota system with an associated deadline may retain the possibility of worker procrastination and related deadline behaviors. A performance appraisal system based on continuous temporal incentives, on the other hand, has the potential to alleviate deadline effects but may lose some of the quality-related benefits associated with the flexibility of a quota/deadline system. We explore these tradeoffs by observing patent examiner behavior and examination quality outcomes surrounding a 2011 reform at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that built on its bi-weekly quota system by adding a set of bonuses tied to daily examination-pendency measures. We find a substantial reduction in deadline effects and near complete temporal smoothing in examiner behavior in connection with the reform, leading to large reductions in average examination pendency while resulting in no corresponding reductions in the accuracy of examinations.
Hardcopy version available to institutional subscribers
System requirements: Adobe [Acrobat] Reader required for PDF files.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Print version record
There are no comments on this title.