1. Free-riders in the Workplace Jun Kobayashi (Seikei U.) June 26, 2005 Joint Conference, Sapporo

2. Outline  Causes of Free-riding in Workplace?  Dependent = Individual Free-riding  Independent = Team Size, Occupations, Motivations  Complete Survey in a Japanese Large Firm

3. Background  Reducing Free-riders: Essential for Efficient Management  Japanese Management: Mutual Monitoring → No Free-riders???  Puzzle: “20% Contribute, 80% Shirk” (Shiroyama)

4. Research Question Who and Why Free-rides???

5. Definition  Free-rider = Free-ride on Coworkers’ Contributions  First Survey in Japan

6. Theoretical Literature  Public Goods Provision: Inexcludable→ Free-riders  Olson: Size↑→ Free-riders↑  In Organizational Studies: Shirking, Social Loafing, Withholding efforts

7. Empirical Literature  George 1992 Monitored, Involved↑→Free-riders↓  Vane Dyne + LePine 1998 In-role/Extra-role Contributions Correlate  Takahashi 1997 Free-riders↑→ Energized↓

8. Research Question: Specified  Yet Effects of Size: still Unknown  In Japan: No Direct Measurement of Free-riding  So… Examine Effects of  Size, Occupations, Motivations  Using Direct Measures

9. Hypotheses  Size↑ Free-rider↑  Outside Worker (Less Monitored)  White-collar (Less Boundaries)  Motivations↓  Age, Gender, Rank, Transfer

10. 1. Introduction 2. Methods 3. Results 4. Conclusion

11. Data

12. Complete Survey  July 2004  Questionnaire, Self-reported, 158 Q’s  Anonymous (sealed envelop)  All workers at 4 branches, Large Firm  Full-time, Formal workers  1,219 respondents (Response Rate = 98.1%)

13. Profiles  1,154 (No Higher Managers)  35.7 years old  Male = 89.3%  Lower Managers = 12.8%  Inside = 54.8%  White-collar = 66.2% (47.1% Clerks and 19.1% Sales), Blue-collar = 33.8% (Maintenance)

14. Measures

15. Dependent: “In-role Contribution”  We ask work that you should share in a team.  How much do your coworkers regard you as doing it?  Much More than expected = 6, More = 5, Little More = 4,  Little Less = 3, Less = 2, Much Less = 1

16. “Extra-role Contribution”  We ask work that is not assigned but someone should do, such as receiving phones.  How much do your coworkers regard you as doing it?  Much More than expected = 6, More = 5, Little More = 4,  Little Less = 3, Less = 2, Much Less = 1

17. Independent: “Team Size”  With how many people do you do work that you should share in a team?

18. Motivations  Average of (α= 0.90)  “I enjoy my work”  “I thrive on my work”  Yes = 5, Somewhat Yes = 4  Neutral = 3  Somewhat No = 2, No = 1

19. Statistical Models  OLS Linear Regression  Controlling variables: p<0.10  VIF <1.6

20. 1. Introduction 2. Methods 3. Results 4. Conclusion

21. Descriptive Statistics  In-role Contributors = 61.8%  Extra-role Contributors = 51.9%

22. Hypotheses (again)  Size↑ Free-rider↑  Outside Worker (Less Monitored)  White-collar (Less Boundaries)  Motivations↓  Age, Gender, Rank, Transfer

23. H1 Size

24. †p<.10, ＊.05, ＊＊.01, ＊＊＊.001 In-roleExtra-role Age.012** Team Size.004.008† Department Size–.002–.004 R2R2.012.004 N11331146

25. H2 Outside Workers

26. H3 White-collar Workers

27. †p<.10, ＊.05, ＊＊.01, ＊＊＊.001 In-roleExtra-role Age.011**–.011* Manager.26* Outside–.13*–.19** White-collar–.31***–.33*** R2R2.030.026 N11361145

28. H4 Motivations

29. †p<.10, ＊.05, ＊＊.01, ＊＊＊.001 In-roleExtra-role Age.011** Outside–.15*–.23** White-collar–.28*** Motivations.11***.15*** R2R2.041.040 N11351150

30. 1. Introduction 2. Methods 3. Results 4. Conclusion

31. Summary of Results ? Size － Free-rider ＋ Outside White-collar Motivations ＋

32. Conclusion  No Clear Effects of Size  Outside workers and White-collar workers: Free-ride More  Motivated workers: Free-ride Less

33. Future Topics  Informal Sanctions?  Organizational Differences?  B/w Firms, Branches, Workplaces  Cultural Differences?