| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Study Withdrawn | Before | After No |
| Field Intervention Completion Date | Before | After August 31, 2015 |
| Field Data Collection Complete | Before | After Yes |
| Field Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization) | Before | After 113 |
| Field Was attrition correlated with treatment status? | Before | After No |
| Field Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations | Before | After 113 |
| Field Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms | Before | After 34 in check-in treatment, 34 in monitoring treatment, 45 in control |
| Field Is there a restricted access data set available on request? | Before | After Yes |
| Field Restricted Data Contact | Before | After [email protected] |
| Field Program Files | Before | After No |
| Field Data Collection Completion Date | Before | After August 31, 2015 |
| Field Is data available for public use? | Before | After No |
| Field | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Field Paper Abstract | Before | After Credible monitoring of remote workers presents unique challenges that may reduce the benefits of formal organization for their management. We consider whether increasing the salience of monitor productivity without changing incentive contracts or monitoring technology leads to changes in remote worker performance. Results from a field experiment run among multi-dimensional task workers in Kenya demonstrate that increasing the visibility of monitor activity improves performance on task dimensions not being directly paid for. Our evidence is consistent with the importance of conspicuous monitoring when managers and workers are not co-located. |
| Field Paper Citation | Before | After Jensen, Nathan, Elizabeth Lyons, Eddy Chebelyon, Ronan Le Bras, and Carla Gomes. "Conspicuous monitoring and remote work." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 176 (2020): 489-511. |
| Field Paper URL | Before | After https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.05.010 |