成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	王怡惠 Wang, Yi-Hui
論文名稱：	Efficiency and the Effort Paradox: An Experimental Study Efficiency and the Effort Paradox: An Experimental Study
指導教授：	張巍勳 Chang, Wei-Shiun
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	管理學院 - 國際經營管理研究所 Institute of International Management
論文出版年：	2026
畢業學年度：	114
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	70
中文關鍵詞：	遠距辦公 (WFH) 、技術效率、努力替代、偽裝參與、行為日誌、資訊不對稱
外文關鍵詞：	Work from home (WFH), Technical efficiency, Effort substitution, Pseudo-engagement, Behavioral logs, Information asymmetry
相關次數：	點閱：4 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

隨著遠距辦公（WFH）常態化，管理者在評估員工努力時面臨更高的資訊不對稱。本研究以受控的球抓取模擬探討技術優化帶來的輸入效率（Input Efficiency, IE）如何影響勞動投入與自我報告，並檢驗去中心化環境中的「努力替代效應」與「偽裝參與」行為。
實驗結果顯示，當 IE 提升時，參與者的實際努力顯著下降；在高效率條件下，勞動投入平均減少 30.6%。然而，由於產出成功率同步上升，此一努力撤回被表面績效所掩蓋，使管理者難以辨識隱性怠工。此外，研究發現穩定存在的「自我行為落差」：即使行為日誌顯示努力下降，參與者仍維持偏高的自我努力評分，呈現典型的偽裝參與現象，反映員工透過偏差化回報調節管理者對其投入的認知。
回歸分析確認 IE 是努力撤回的主要驅動因素，而感知任務價值具調節效果。研究建議，於高效率的遠距情境中，管理者若僅依賴產出指標將難以掌握真實投入，需同時納入行為軌跡與心理因素，以降低資訊不對稱造成的管理盲區。

As remote work becomes integrated into modern organizations, managers face increasing information asymmetry regarding employee effort. This study employs a controlled ball-catching simulation to examine how technological optimization affects labor intensity and reporting accuracy. We focus on the impact of Input Efficiency (IE), specifically analyzing the "Effort Substitution Effect" and "Pseudo-engagement" in decentralized settings.
The experiment observed participants transitioning through different task-friction environments. Results show a significant withdrawal of actual labor as efficiency improved; specifically, actual effort dropped by 30.6% in high-efficiency scenarios. Paradoxically, this reduction in effort was masked by improved output success rates, which maintained perceived value for the employer.
Furthermore, a persistent "Self-Behavior Gap" was identified. While objective behavioral logs showed a decrease in effort, participants consistently maintained high self-reported effort scores. This reflects "Pseudo-engagement," where workers utilize biased reporting to protect their professional image and manage managerial perceptions. Regression analysis confirms that IE is the primary driver of effort withdrawal, while perceived task value acts as a critical moderator. The findings suggest that in high-efficiency remote environments, managers must move beyond purely outcome-based metrics to detect hidden slack and reporting biases.

ABSTRACT I
Acknowledgements III
Table of Contents V
List of Tables VIII
List of Figures IX
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND. 1
2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE. 2
3 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION. 3
3.1 Theoretical Contribution. 4
3.2 Methodological Contribution. 4
3.3 Managerial Contribution. 5
4 THESIS STRUCTURE. 5
CHAPTER TWO RELATED LITERATURE 8
1 TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF LABOR EFFORT. 8
1.1 The Role of Efficiency-Enhancing Technologies in Input Efficiency (IE). 8
1.2 The Law of Least Effort and the Effort Substitution Effect. 8
1.3 Psychological Disengagement and the Risks of System Optimization. 9
2 THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS OF WORK EFFORT. 10
2.1 Defining Effort: Energy Mobilization and Opportunity Cost. 10
2.2 The Law of Least Effort and the Effort Paradox. 11
2.3 Input Efficiency (IE) and the Theoretical Reallocation of Effort. 12
2.4 Real Effort vs. Induced Effort in Experimental Settings. 13
3 THE RELIABILITY AND BIAS OF SELF-REPORTED EFFORT. 14
3.1 The Self-Behavior Gap and Social Desirability Bias. 14
3.2 Insufficient Effort Responding (IER) and the Over-reporting Phenomenon. 15
3.3 Monitoring Challenges and Cognitive Illusions in the Digital Workplace. 16
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 18
1 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK. 18
1.1 The Environmental Context: Information Asymmetry in WFH. 18
1.2 Operational Catalyst: Manipulation of Input Efficiency (IE). 19
1.3 Behavioral and Psychological Dimensions (Hypotheses). 19
2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. 20
3 TREATMENT DESIGN. 21
3.1 Operationalization of Input Efficiency (IE). 21
3.2 Operationalization of Output Effectiveness (OE). 22
3.3 LL to HL Transition (IE Gain in Low-Value Context). 23
3.4 LH to HH Transition (IE Gain in High-Value Context). 23
4 PARTICIPANTS AND SESSION DETAILS. 25
4.1 Strategic Grouping for IE Analysis. 25
4.2 Low-Value Pathway (LL to HL). 25
4.3 High-Value Pathway (LH to HH). 26
5 MEASUREMENT OF SELF-REPORTED EFFORT. 26
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 29
1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF WORKER DECISIONS. 29
2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TREATMENT EFFECTS (H1 & H2). 31
2.1 Empirical Validation of H1: Objective Effort Withdrawal. 32
2.2 The Efficiency Paradox: Tool-Driven Success and the Performance Facade. 35
2.3 Empirical Validation of H2: The Self-Behavior Gap. 36
3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS: PSYCHOLOGICAL DRIVERS OF EFFORT REALLOCATION. 38
3.1 The Dominance of Technology (Negative Constants). 41
3.2 Motivation as a Moderator of the Effort Substitution Effect. 41
4 SUMMARY: THE MANAGEMENT BLIND SPOT IN DIGITAL WORKPLACES. 42
4.1 Hidden Slack and the Performance Facade. 43
4.2 Strategic Reporting Distortion and Pseudo-engagement. 43
4.3 Strategic Mitigation through Task Value. 44
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 45
1 DISCUSSIONS. 45
2 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY. 47
3 ACADEMIC IMPLICATIONS. 48
4 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS. 50
REFERENCES 52
appendices 54
APPENDIX 1 54
APPENDIX 2 58
                                    

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2015). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(1), 165–218.
Bowling, N. A., Huang, J. L., Bragg, C. B., Khazon, S., Liu, M., & Blackmore, C. E. (2016). Who cares and who is careless? Insufficient effort responding as a reflection of respondent personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(2), 218.
Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018). Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2), 239–257.
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025). Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(2), 889–942.
Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1), 7–42.
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69–106.
Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General), 120(3), 253–281.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.
Gächter, S., Huang, L., & Sefton, M. (2016). Combining “real effort” with induced effort costs: The ball-catching task. Experimental Economics, 19(4), 687–712.
Inzlicht, M., Shenhav, A., & Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 337–349.
Katz, L. F. (1986). Efficiency wage theories: A partial evaluation. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1(0), 235–276.
Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665.
Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(6), 661–679.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437.
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–192.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Prendergast, C. (1999). The Provision of Incentives in Firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(1), 7–63.
Richter, M., & Wright, R. A. (2014). Contemporary perspectives on effort: A special issue. Motivation and Emotion, 38(6), 745–747.
Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518.
Takeuchi, M., Niimi, J., & Hoshino, T. (2024). Handling the inconsistency between self-report and the actual behavior: Validity of excluding survey participants with insufficient effort responding. International Journal of Market Research, 66(4), 451–472.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文