Vote and Voice:

An experiment on the effects of inclusive governance rules

Shaun Hargreaves-heap, Kei Tsutsui, Daniel John Zizzo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

We present an experiment that examines three mechanisms through which the extent of inclusivity in an organization’s governance arrangements might affect its performance. We distinguish extent of inclusivity along two dimensions: members of the organization may or may not be able to a) vote on collective decisions (‘vote’) and b) discuss with others what should be done (‘voice’). We find that the inclusivity can affect performance and that each dimension of inclusivity matters, but for different decision problems within an organization. The ‘voice’ matters for motivation whereas ‘voting’ matters for processing and aggregating information; and the decisive difference for performance comes from ‘voice’, not ‘voting’.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-29
Number of pages29
JournalSocial Choice and Welfare
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 29 Aug 2019

Keywords

  • democracy
  • dictatorship
  • rights
  • cooperation
  • wisdom of crowd
  • rational ignorance

Cite this

Vote and Voice: An experiment on the effects of inclusive governance rules. / Hargreaves-heap, Shaun; Tsutsui, Kei; Zizzo, Daniel John.

In: Social Choice and Welfare, 29.08.2019, p. 1-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{679b33e5d9fc4964b21fa5cca16b4e35,
title = "Vote and Voice:: An experiment on the effects of inclusive governance rules",
abstract = "We present an experiment that examines three mechanisms through which the extent of inclusivity in an organization’s governance arrangements might affect its performance. We distinguish extent of inclusivity along two dimensions: members of the organization may or may not be able to a) vote on collective decisions (‘vote’) and b) discuss with others what should be done (‘voice’). We find that the inclusivity can affect performance and that each dimension of inclusivity matters, but for different decision problems within an organization. The ‘voice’ matters for motivation whereas ‘voting’ matters for processing and aggregating information; and the decisive difference for performance comes from ‘voice’, not ‘voting’.",
keywords = "democracy, dictatorship, rights, cooperation, wisdom of crowd, rational ignorance",
author = "Shaun Hargreaves-heap and Kei Tsutsui and Zizzo, {Daniel John}",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1007/s00355-019-01214-5",
language = "English",
pages = "1--29",
journal = "Social Choice and Welfare",
issn = "0176-1714",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vote and Voice:

T2 - An experiment on the effects of inclusive governance rules

AU - Hargreaves-heap, Shaun

AU - Tsutsui, Kei

AU - Zizzo, Daniel John

PY - 2019/8/29

Y1 - 2019/8/29

N2 - We present an experiment that examines three mechanisms through which the extent of inclusivity in an organization’s governance arrangements might affect its performance. We distinguish extent of inclusivity along two dimensions: members of the organization may or may not be able to a) vote on collective decisions (‘vote’) and b) discuss with others what should be done (‘voice’). We find that the inclusivity can affect performance and that each dimension of inclusivity matters, but for different decision problems within an organization. The ‘voice’ matters for motivation whereas ‘voting’ matters for processing and aggregating information; and the decisive difference for performance comes from ‘voice’, not ‘voting’.

AB - We present an experiment that examines three mechanisms through which the extent of inclusivity in an organization’s governance arrangements might affect its performance. We distinguish extent of inclusivity along two dimensions: members of the organization may or may not be able to a) vote on collective decisions (‘vote’) and b) discuss with others what should be done (‘voice’). We find that the inclusivity can affect performance and that each dimension of inclusivity matters, but for different decision problems within an organization. The ‘voice’ matters for motivation whereas ‘voting’ matters for processing and aggregating information; and the decisive difference for performance comes from ‘voice’, not ‘voting’.

KW - democracy

KW - dictatorship

KW - rights

KW - cooperation

KW - wisdom of crowd

KW - rational ignorance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072026558&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00355-019-01214-5

DO - 10.1007/s00355-019-01214-5

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 29

JO - Social Choice and Welfare

JF - Social Choice and Welfare

SN - 0176-1714

ER -