Motivating through managing by walking around
Last registered on March 10, 2019

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Motivating through managing by walking around
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003945
Initial registration date
March 03, 2019
Last updated
March 10, 2019 10:54 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Notre Dame
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Arizona State University
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2015-01-01
End date
2016-12-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We designed a natural field experiment to test the impact of MBWA in collaboration with one of the retail divisions of a medium-sized bank located in Latin America. The division that we worked with has around 1,000 employees and 79 branches. The experiment allowed us to exogenously manipulate the schedule of field visits that the divisional manager made to the branches. To stress test the value of MBWA, we implemented our intervention at a time when incentives were strong, as the bank employees were engaged in a series of tournaments that the bank ran among its branches with the objective of stimulating sales. Throughout the six months of the tournaments, we randomly planned the visits of the retail division manager to the branches. Each branch was visited once, and only once by the division manager.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Casas-Arce, Pablo and F. Asis Martinez-Jerez. 2019. "Motivating through managing by walking around." AEA RCT Registry. March 10. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3945/history/42986
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
In collaboration with a medium-sized Latin-American bank, we engineered a field experiment by randomizing the visits of the retail division manager to the 79 branches and measuring the sales performance of the branches during the time surrounding the visits.
Intervention Start Date
2015-07-01
Intervention End Date
2015-10-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Branch weighted sales performance
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
We normalized and weighted the performance by the weights that each product carried in the bonus system.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
In collaboration with a medium-sized Latin-American bank, we engineered a field experiment by randomizing the visits of the division manager to the branches.
Experimental Design Details
From July to October of 2015, the retail manager of the service centers division of a Latin American bank visited each of the 79 branches of the network. Throughout the four months of the tournaments, we randomly planned the visits of the retail division manager to the branches. Each branch was visited once, and only once by the division manager. We selected the timing of the visits in a manner that was orthogonal to branch productivity, with geography as the only limitation to randomization (branches were visited in clusters of proximity for convenience). Furthermore, another limitation to the randomization process was that the manager told us the dates he was available to visit branches, and then we randomly allocated branches to those visit dates. At the same time, the branches were participating in a series of sales tournaments that the bank organized from June to November. The branches were randomly allocated to one of three tournaments of about 26 branches each. There is no pure control group in the sense of branches not being subject to the treatment (the visit by the divisional manager). However, the implementation of the treatment is staggered and each visit is randomized, so the control group are those branches that are not visited at the time. We measure the abnormal sales in event time to identify the impact of the treatment (the visit).
Randomization Method
Randomizations were done in the office by a computer.
Randomization Unit
The branch was the unit of randomization.
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
79 branches
Sample size: planned number of observations
Approximately 20,000 observations. 79 branches, daily observations during a year.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
79 branches.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Notre Dame, Office of Research Compliance
IRB Approval Date
2014-08-03
IRB Approval Number
14-07-1967
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
December 31, 2015, 12:00 AM +00:00
Is data collection complete?
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
December 31, 2016, 12:00 AM +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers