← Every exhibit

Table Figure 1 Revenue operations & AI

The variable-pay risk-design card

Name observability, output uncertainty, risk, control alternatives, and incentive loading before changing variable pay.

Risk-design fieldRequired inputPermitted statementStop signal
EffortWhich effort matters, and can it be verified?“This part of the effort is observed or remains hidden.”Output is used as a substitute for all effort.
UncertaintyHow uncertain is the effort-output link?“The outcome is a noisy or more predictable signal under this setting.”A noisy outcome is treated as a clean measure.
Agent riskWho bears outcome risk, and what is known about it?“The pay rule transfers this declared risk.”Risk aversion is assumed away.
Control alternativesWhat coaching, information, supervision, or field management is available?“Compensation is one part of the control mix.”Pay is used to repair every process problem.
LoadingHow strongly does pay vary with the outcome?“This is the incentive intensity under review.”A higher percentage is presented as universally better.
EvidenceWhich study or local test supports the choice?“The decision is conditional on this evidence.”An experiment becomes a current prescription.

Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.

Cite Embed

Reference & Evidence

Source: Author's diagnostic framework grounded in Ghosh and John (2000) and Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, and Young (1993). The worksheet is synthetic and does not calculate pay.

Each line is a claim from the register this journal publishes against, resolved from the register at build time.

  • A "we conducted three experiments to investigate three unresolved predictions involving the incentive-insurance trade-off posited in the model", against a literature where "empirical support remains sketchy" Ghosh & John. (2000) · GJ00-C1
  • A The first prediction, and the condition it needs: "compensation should be less incentive loaded with greater effort-output uncertainty so as to provide additional insurance to a risk-averse agent", supported "but only when risk-averse agents undertook nonverifiable effort" Ghosh & John. (2000) · GJ00-C2
  • A The second prediction failed: "when verifiable effort made incentives moot, as is the case for the second prediction, the model failed to order the data", which is why this is conditional support and not a rule Ghosh & John. (2000) · GJ00-C3
  • A The finding runs against the intuition: "the results imply a limited role for incen"tive compensation "in salesforce control systems" Cravens, Ingram, LaForge & Young. (1993) · CLY93-C2
  • A And what they call for instead: "they also suggest the need for a proper blend between field sales management and compensation control and identify important avenues for future research" Cravens, Ingram, LaForge & Young. (1993) · CLY93-C3

Grades: A, verified against the printed page of the primary source · B, primary source, text layer only · C, authoritative secondary · D, reported.

Related exhibits