I think that high controllability and high measurability are critical conditions under which measuring performance will motivate performance.

First of all, high controllability will motivate workers to work harder and smarter. Under highly controllable condition, workers can work independently and their efforts well translate to performance. Therefore, they work harder and smarter as possible as they can. For example, in Lincoln electronic company, workers focus on making arc welders as many as they can, and their efforts directly translated to their performance. They focus on trying to come up with new idea to work efficiently and make their efforts continuously. Under this condition, management can measure workers’ effort correctly, and as a result, management can give workers fair reputation, which would motivate workers.

Second, high measurability is also critical to effectiveness of measuring performance. Under highly measurable condition, performance of workers are easily and objectively assessed and measured.
More importantly, the gap between what management wants workers to do and what workers want to do should be consistent. For example, in Lincoln electronic company, workers are assessed by how many arc welders they make. It is easy to quantify and measuring performance motivate workers to make arc welders as many as they can. Also, this workers effort is consistency with what management wants workers to do. Under this condition, measuring performance motivate workers well.

Finally, under conditions which management trusts and treats workers equally and discloses past reputation and the reasons of the reputation, workers would also trust in management. Then measuring performance makes sense.

In conclusion, under highly controllable and highly measurable conditions, contingent rewards have great validity, which give workers extrinsic