In Simple Words
Imagine a sports coach who rewards players based on personal judgement rather than scoreboard stats; if the coach rewards bench-clearing enthusiasm instead of passing skills, the team loses games. However, if the coach evaluates players on teamwork, passing accuracy, and defensive effort, players build comprehensive skills that improve the whole team without resorting to selfish play.
Teachers in Pakistani private schools
- Manager-rated raise
- Reported bias and favoritism
- Test-based raise
- No clear difference in reports
Endline survey comparison of the two performance-pay contracts. This concerns reported perceptions, not proof that actual gender bias was absent. The flat-raise arm is omitted.
See source →Research question
Managerial discretion in performance evaluation can fail if managers prioritize superficial administrative tasks over productive employee effort. Subjective performance incentives require managerial preference alignment with broader organizational goals to successfully direct worker effort without causing corruption or bias.
Participants
N = 189 school managers (principals/vice principals) and 6,080 teachers in Pakistan across 234 private schools.
Study Design
Randomized controlled trial (RCT) with within-school tournaments and vignette-based survey experiments measuring managerial valuation of teacher value-added, attendance, and classroom behavioral management.
Results
Moving a teacher from the 50th to 90th percentile in student test score value-added increased managerial subjective performance ratings by 0.7 standard deviations; managerial preferences for professional development and test prep increased test scores by 0.25 SD (p < 0.05), while subjective incentives generated no statistically significant increase in teacher bias or favoritism relative to objective pay.
Takeaway
Implement subjective performance evaluation frameworks where managers set explicit effort-based goals annually and conduct frequent direct observations to align raises with multidimensional productivity.
Source and citation
See source →Read alongside the research
Plain-English glossary
Original explanations, informed by the references below. Examples are illustrations, not data from the studies above. The research text stays unchanged.
- Randomized controlled trial
A study that uses chance, like drawing lots, to decide who receives each option being compared. Researchers compare the groups’ outcomes to estimate the effect of those options.
ExampleA lottery assigns volunteers to a training programme or a comparison group. Researchers then compare their outcomes.
GET-IT glossary · Randomized study ↗Read more about randomized controlled trial →- Statistically significant
A label used when a result passes a chosen statistical threshold, often p < 0.05. It does not show how large or useful an effect is. A result that is not statistically significant does not prove there is no effect.
ExampleA study reports p = 0.03 against a 0.05 threshold. It passes that test, but the effect could still be too small to matter.
American Statistical Association · Statement on p-values ↗Read more about statistically significant →