Understanding the Barriers to Promotion for Factory Workers

Last registered on March 10, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Understanding the Barriers to Promotion for Factory Workers
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018044
Initial registration date
March 05, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
March 10, 2026, 10:22 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
​The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
UC Berkeley
PI Affiliation
UC Berkeley

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-03-13
End date
2027-11-30
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Why do workers decline promotion opportunities even when advancement is feasible and associated with higher pay? This study investigates supply-side barriers to promotion by examining whether workers' willingness to accept leadership roles is limited by underestimation of the on-the-job learning due to their low current interpersonal skills. Motivated by our survey results of factory workers, we conduct a two-stage randomized controlled trial with vocational students and factory workers. Students are organized into three-person production teams that complete a sequence of manufacturing tasks designed to simulate a factory production environment. The experiment consists of two production rounds with opportunities to choose or accept a leadership role. The design introduces three sources of randomized variation. First, participants are randomly assigned to the leadership role in the initial production round, generating exogenous leadership experience. Second, teams are randomized to environments that vary the difficulty of the leadership task, implemented through production shocks that require groups to adjust their production plan. Third, an information intervention is delivered between production rounds to a subset of participants. The intervention aims to address potential projection bias by providing information about learning-by-doing in leadership roles through a short video in which experienced leaders share their past experiences. In the factory setting, a similar video-based information intervention is integrated into the promotion process. The primary outcomes include participants’ willingness to take leadership roles in subsequent production rounds. By experimentally varying both leadership exposure and information about skill acquisition, the study seeks to assess whether underestimation of on-the-job learning represent important frictions that discourage workers from pursuing internal promotion opportunities.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Chen, Zixu, Ziyue Chen and Wei Lin. 2026. "Understanding the Barriers to Promotion for Factory Workers." AEA RCT Registry. March 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18044-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The study involves two distinct field experiments designed to simulate and analyze internal labor market dynamics and promotion decisions.

1. Vocational Student Experiment (Lab-in-the-Field): The study utilizes a factory simulation experiment involving the production of bracelets to investigate supply-side barriers to promotion. The experiment is divided into two 3-hour production rounds (Round 1 and Round 2). Participants are organized into three-person teams consisting of one manager (Leader) and two workers (Members).

The study includes three layers of randomized intervention:
1.1 Exogenous Leadership Exposure: In Round 1, participants are randomly assigned to the role of Leader or Member to generate variation in leadership experience.

1.2 Task Difficulty (Production Shocks): Teams are randomized into different production environments characterized by varying levels of difficulty. This is implemented through "production shocks" where the required bracelet patterns and material inputs are changed during the production process, requiring the Leader to coordinate the team, calculate new material needs, and manage the transition.

1.3 Information Intervention: Between Round 1 and Round 2, a subset of participants (specifically those who were Members in Round 1) are randomly assigned to receive an information intervention. This consists of a video designed to address "projection bias" regarding skill acquisition.

2. Factory Worker Experiment (Field): In a partner manufacturing firm, current employees are provided with opportunities to apply for internal promotion to leadership positions. A subset of these employees is randomly selected to receive an informational video intervention similar to the student experiment, integrated into the standard internal recruitment process.
Intervention Start Date
2026-03-14
Intervention End Date
2026-10-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Willingness to accept a leadership role in Round 2.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
This is measured via a survey administered between Round 1 and Round 2 (after the information intervention for the treatment group). Participants are asked to select their preferred role (Leader or Member) for the subsequent production round. The decision is incentive-compatible, as their choice significantly influences their actual assignment in Round 2. The outcome is a binary variable indicating whether the participant volunteered for the promotion to Leader.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
1. Self-assessed leadership ability (Beliefs).
2. Predicted rate of learning (Projection Bias).
3. Team Production Performance.
4. Leadership Behavior / Task Execution.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
1. Beliefs: Measured via survey questions asking participants to rate their current leadership ability relative to 100 peers (0-100 scale, where lower scores indicate higher rank).
2. Predicted Learning: Measured by asking participants to estimate what their ability would be if they acted as a leader for another round (testing for underestimation of learning-by-doing).
3. Team Performance: Measured by the total count of "Good" (quality-approved) bracelets produced per round and the number of "Bad" (defective) products.
4. Leadership Behavior: Measured by the accuracy of the Leader's administrative tasks, such as the timeliness of material requests (recorded in the "Material Supplementation Excel"), accuracy of reports to the supervisor, and management of worker breaks.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The study is a two-stage Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT).
1. Vocational Student Experiment (Lab-in-the-Field)
1.1 Stage 1: Participants are randomly assigned to roles (Leader vs. Member) and teams are randomly assigned to production difficulty levels (Plan 1 vs. Plan 2).
Interim Stage: Participants who were Members in Stage 1 are randomized into an Information Treatment group (Video) or a Control group (No Video).

1.2. Stage 2: Participants indicate their willingness to be Leaders. Roles are assigned based on these preferences (with random tie-breaking). Production continues.

2. Factory Worker Experiment (Field): In a partner manufacturing firm, current employees are provided with opportunities to apply for internal promotion to leadership positions. A subset of these employees is randomly selected to receive an informational video intervention similar to the student experiment, integrated into the standard internal recruitment process.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer.
Randomization Unit
Individual and team-level.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
400 vocational students and 300 factory general workers.
Sample size: planned number of observations
400 vocational students and 300 factory general workers.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1. Vocational students (400 students)
Total Participants: 90 to 120 participants in each panel, four panels in total.
Total Teams (Clusters): 30-40 teams (3 participants per team).

Arms Breakdown in each panel (Approximate):
Leadership Experience (Round 1): 40 Leaders / 80 Members.
Production Difficulty: ~20 Teams in Plan 1 / ~20 Teams in Plan 2.
Information Intervention: Of the 80 Round 1 Members, approximately 40 are assigned to the Video Treatment and 40 to the Control.

2. Factory general workers (300 students)
A subset of these employees is randomly selected to receive an informational video intervention similar to the student experiment, integrated into the standard internal recruitment process.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes.
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Institutional Review Board, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
IRB Approval Date
2025-06-23
IRB Approval Number
CUHKSZ-D-20250050
IRB Name
Office for Protection of Human Subjects, UC Berkeley
IRB Approval Date
2025-11-25
IRB Approval Number
2025-11-19140