Cash or Non-Cash? Unveiling Ideators' Incentive Preferences in Crowdsourcing Contests

Overview

• Researchers investigated how letting people choose between cash and non-cash incentives affects their creative performance in crowdsourcing contests.
• They examined how the market context (non-profit vs. for-profit) of the organization hosting the contest impacts incentive preferences and effectiveness.
• The key findings are that people often prefer non-cash incentives, and giving them a choice can boost their creative performance, but this effect is moderated by the market context.

Plain English Explanation

Crowdsourcing contests are events where organizations ask people to submit creative ideas or solutions, often with prizes awarded to the winners. Traditionally, the prizes in these contests have been cash payments. However, research has shown that non-cash incentives, like merchandise or experiences, can also be effective at motivating people.

In this study, the researchers wanted to explore what happens when you let the contest participants choose between cash and non-cash prizes. Would this flexibility lead to better creative performance? And does it matter if the contest is run by a non-profit organization versus a for-profit company?

The key finding is that people tend to prefer non-cash incentives, even in for-profit contexts. Allowing them to choose their preferred incentive can boost their creative output. But this effect is influenced by the market context - when the contest is run by a for-profit company, participants who choose non-cash prizes tend to put in less effort.

The researchers explain that the diversity of people's incentive preferences is crucial. If you can offer a range of incentive options to match what different people value, you're more likely to see benefits from letting people choose. But in a for-profit setting, non-cash prizes may not be as motivating.

Overall, this research provides guidance to organizations on designing effective incentive structures for crowdsourcing contests. The takeaway is that understanding and accommodating people's preferences, rather than defaulting to cash prizes, can lead to better creative results.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted a series of studies to explore ideators' (contest participants') preferences for cash versus non-cash incentives, and how these preferences and their effects on creative performance are moderated by the market context (non-profit vs. for-profit) of the organization hosting the contest.

In the first study, they surveyed ideators and found that many preferred non-cash incentives like merchandise, experiences, or charitable donations, even in for-profit contexts. The second study demonstrated that allowing ideators to self-select their preferred incentive (cash or non-cash) can enhance their creative performance compared to assigning incentives.

However, the third study revealed that the market context moderates this effect. When the contest was hosted by a for-profit organization, ideators who selected non-cash incentives tended to exert less effort than those who chose cash rewards. This suggests that the underlying motivations and norms around incentives may differ between non-profit and for-profit settings.

The researchers argue that the key insight is the importance of accounting for the heterogeneity of ideators' incentive preferences. When organizations can offer a diverse set of incentive options to match these diverse preferences, ideators are more likely to be motivated and perform better creatively. But in a for-profit context, non-cash incentives may not be as effective at driving effort and performance.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge several limitations and avenues for future research. For example, they note that the studies were conducted in the context of crowdsourcing contests, and the findings may not generalize to other types of incentive structures or work environments.

Additionally, the researchers did not explore the specific reasons why non-cash incentives may be less motivating in a for-profit setting. This could be an area for further investigation, as understanding the underlying psychological and social mechanisms would provide more nuanced guidance for managers.

Another potential limitation is that the studies relied on self-reported measures of creative performance, which could be subject to biases. Incorporating more objective performance metrics could strengthen the conclusions.

Overall, this research provides valuable insights into the complex dynamics of incentive preferences and their effects on creative output. By highlighting the importance of incentive-preference fit and the moderating role of market context, the findings can help organizations design more effective and motivating incentive structures.

Conclusion

This multi-study research demonstrates that people often prefer non-cash incentives, such as merchandise, experiences, or charitable donations, over traditional cash rewards, even in for-profit settings. Allowing contest participants to choose their preferred incentive can enhance their creative performance.

However, the researchers found that the market context of the organization hosting the contest – whether it's a non-profit or a for-profit entity – can moderate the effectiveness of these incentives. In for-profit settings, non-cash incentives may not be as motivating, leading to lower effort and creative output from participants who select them.

The key takeaway is that understanding and accommodating the diversity of people's incentive preferences is crucial for designing effective incentive structures, particularly in crowdsourcing contests. By offering a range of incentive options, organizations can better match what individuals value and unlock the potential for enhanced creative performance.