Read the following description of a quasi-experiment and evaluate the conclusion drawn by the researcher. That is, determine whether the conclusion is justified by the results or if an alternative explanation for the outcome is possible. Also, identify any methodological problems that ought to be corrected:

To test the effectiveness of an employee incentive plan on employee morale, a program evaluator uses a nonequivalent control group design in a company that manufactures electric trains. The incentive plan creates five-person work groups that set productivity goals, and bonuses occur when the groups meet certain goals. The unit that is given the incentive program is made up of veteran workers (workers who have been with the company for at least 10 years and are familiar with the company operations). The control group is a unit that was randomly selected from other units in the organization. Before and after the plan is implemented, productivity (number of trains produced per day) is measured. The evaluator pronounces the program a success after these results occur: program group pretest = 25 
program group posttest = 41 
control group pretest = 21 
control group posttest = 38

ANSWER

Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Employee Incentive Plan: A Quasi-Experiment Analysis

Introduction

In this essay, we will evaluate the conclusion drawn by the researcher from a quasi-experiment designed to test the effectiveness of an employee incentive plan on employee morale in a company manufacturing electric trains. The researcher employed a nonequivalent control group design, comparing a program group that received the incentive plan to a control group selected from other units in the organization. The productivity (number of trains produced per day) was measured before and after implementing the incentive plan, and the results were used to assess the program’s success.

Evaluation of the Conclusion

The researcher pronounced the program a success based on the following results:

Program group pretest = 25
Program group posttest = 41
Control group pretest = 21
Control group posttest = 38

Upon reviewing these results, it is evident that there was an increase in productivity for both the program group (from 25 to 41) and the control group (from 21 to 38) after the implementation of the employee incentive plan. While the productivity increased in both groups, the program group exhibited a larger increase than the control group. However, this conclusion may not be justified solely based on these results.

Alternative Explanations

One alternative explanation for the observed increase in productivity could be the Hawthorne effect. The employees in both the program group and the control group may have felt motivated and valued by the fact that the company was implementing a new incentive plan, leading to an increase in productivity for both groups. The employees may have been more conscious of their performance and made additional efforts to meet the productivity goals during the assessment period.

Methodological Problems

The researcher used a nonequivalent control group design, which can introduce selection bias and limit the ability to draw causal conclusions. The program group was made up of veteran workers who were already familiar with the company’s operations, while the control group was randomly selected from other units. This creates a potential confounding variable as the veteran workers’ experience and familiarity with the company’s operations may have influenced their productivity levels independently of the incentive plan.

Furthermore, there was no random assignment of the program group and control group. A more robust research design would involve random assignment of employees to either the program or control group, ensuring a more unbiased comparison of the effects of the incentive plan.

Conclusion

While the observed increase in productivity for the program group is noteworthy, it is essential to interpret the findings with caution. The conclusion that the employee incentive plan is a success may not be fully justified based on the results obtained from the quasi-experiment. The presence of alternative explanations, such as the Hawthorne effect, and methodological issues like selection bias and lack of random assignment, should be considered. To draw more robust conclusions, future research should employ a randomized controlled trial design with a larger and more diverse sample of employees to assess the true impact of the incentive plan on employee morale and productivity.