journal article·2025-10-17Open access

Enhancing Reward Distribution Fairness in Collaborative Teams: A Quadratic Optimization Framework

Yanmeng Tao, Bo Jiang, Shuaian Wang

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 20

Abstract

In team collaboration environments, ensuring fair reward distribution is crucial for maintaining motivation and productivity. However, existing reward allocation methods often suffer from biases in self-assessment, leading to inequitable outcomes. In this study, we introduce a ranking mechanism that converts self-assessed contribution ratios into task orders based on the values of these ratios. Then we propose two methods using this mechanism: Method 1 uses quadratic optimization to adjust the contribution ratios, aligning them more closely with actual values, while Method 2 incorporates task reward differences to ensure fairer reward allotment. Experimental results show that the reward allotment method in the latest research reduces the loss by 25.31% compared to the conventional method, while our methods achieve a loss reduction of 53.28% for Method 1 and 64.4% for Method 2. Sensitivity analysis confirms the effectiveness of both methods under varying self-assessment errors, reward amounts, and task sizes, maintaining an average loss reduction of over 30%. These findings provide valuable insights for optimizing reward distribution, such as enhancing self-assessment accuracy and adjusting employee task assignments for improved fairness.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Business Strategy and Innovation · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Collaboration in agile enterprises

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong 999077, China

References (44)

Show source-provided references
1. Equity and the distribution of rewards10.1037/h0031684 ↗
2. Lee, H.W., and Rhee, D.Y. (2023). Effects of organizational justice on employee satisfaction: Integrating the exchange and the value-based perspectives. Sustainability, 15.10.3390/su15075993 ↗
3. Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements10.1007/BF01419447 ↗
4. The unpacking effect in evaluative judgments: When the whole is less than the sum of its parts10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00516-4 ↗
5. Biased self-assessments, feedback, and employees’ compensation plan choices10.1016/j.aos.2016.08.003 ↗
6. Equity theory: The recent literature, methodological considerations, and new directions10.2307/257661 ↗
7. Scheel, T.E., Otto, K., Vahle-Hinz, T., Holstad, T., and Rigotti, T. (2019). A fair share of work: Is fairness of task distribution a mediator between transformational leadership and follower emotional exhaustion?. Front. Psychol., 10.10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02690 ↗
8. Haines, V.Y., Patient, D., and Guerrero, S. (2024). The fairness of human resource management practices: An assessment by the justice sensitive. Front. Psychol., 15.10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1355378 ↗
9. How to support self-assessment through standards in dissimilar-solution-tasks10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101998 ↗
10. The ideator’s bias: How identity-induced self-efficacy drives overestimation in employee-driven process innovation10.5465/amj.2017.0438 ↗
11. The social psychology of biased self-assessment10.5688/ajpe6299 ↗
12. Barana, A., Boetti, G., and Marchisio, M. (2022). Self-assessment in the development of mathematical problem-solving skills. Educ. Sci., 12.10.3390/educsci12020081 ↗
13. Peer-and self-assessment in collaborative online language-learning tasks: The role of modes and phases of regulation of learning10.1007/s10212-024-00915-5 ↗
14. Woodcock, M. (2024). Team Metrics: Resources for Measuring and Improving Team Performance, Routledge.
15. A cross-level study on the impact of team-based reward allocation on employees’ innovative behavior in manufacturing enterprises10.7819/rbgn.v26i03.4268 ↗
16. Team incentives and performance: Evidence from a retail chain10.1257/aer.20160788 ↗
17. The effect of financial incentives on performance: A quantitative review of individual and team-based financial incentives10.1111/joop.12039 ↗
18. Envy-free allocations respecting social networks10.1016/j.artint.2022.103664 ↗
19. The dark side of team incentives: Experimental evidence on advice quality from financial service professionals10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.012 ↗
20. Team incentives and lower ability workers: A real-effort experiment10.1016/j.jebo.2025.106986 ↗
21. Incentivizing interdependent tasks: Evidence from a real-effort experiment10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106718 ↗
22. Making teamwork work: Enhancing teamwork and assessment in higher education10.1002/2211-5463.13936 ↗
23. Tao, Y., Jiang, B., Cheng, Q., and Wang, S. (2025). A quadratic programming model for fair resource allocation. Mathematics, 13.10.3390/math13162635 ↗
24. Jiang, B., Tian, X., Pang, K.W., Cheng, Q., Jin, Y., and Wang, S. (2024). Rightful rewards: Refining equity in team resource allocation through a data-driven optimization approach. Mathematics, 12.10.3390/math12132095 ↗
25. A rational resource allocation method for multimedia network teaching reform based on Bayesian partition data mining10.3934/era.2023303 ↗
26. Liner alliance shipping network design model with shippers’ choice inertia and empty container relocation10.3934/era.2023280 ↗
27. Qiao, R., Xu, X., and Low, B.K.H. (2023, January 23–29). Collaborative causal inference with fair incentives. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, Honolulu, HI, USA.
28. Fair swarm learning: Improving incentives for collaboration by a fair reward mechanism10.1016/j.knosys.2024.112451 ↗
29. Fair cost allocation for collaborative hub networks
30. Team-based employee remuneration: A balanced scorecard group target and weight selection-based bonus allocation10.1108/ARJ-11-2016-0148 ↗
31. Optimum risk/reward sharing framework to incentivize integrated project delivery adoption10.1080/01446193.2023.2169316 ↗
32. Risk–reward share allocation under different integrated project delivery relational structures: A Monte-Carlo simulation and cooperative game theoretic solutions approach10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-13181 ↗
33. Liu, H., Zhang, C., Chen, X., and Tai, W. (2024). Optimizing collaborative crowdsensing: A graph theoretical approach to team recruitment and fair incentive distribution. Sensors, 24.10.3390/s24102983 ↗
34. Using cooperative game theory to determine profit distribution in IPD projects
35. Team selection and cost deviation sharing in IPD systems for emerging markets: A cooperative game theory approach10.1061/JLADAH.LADR-1221 ↗
36. Hybrid and online peer group grading: Adding assessment efficiency while maintaining perceived fairness
37. Nationality biases in peer evaluations: The country-of-origin effect in global virtual teams10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101969 ↗
38. Performance appraisal system and its optimization method for enterprise management employees based on the kpi index10.1155/2022/1937083 ↗
39. Resce, G., Zinilli, A., and Cerulli, G. (2022). Machine learning prediction of academic collaboration networks. Sci. Rep., 12.10.1038/s41598-022-26531-1 ↗
40. (2025, October 08). State of the Global Workplace. Available online: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx.
41. (2025, October 08). 2024 Global Human Capital Trends. Available online: https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/talent/human-capital-trends/2024.html.
42. Rubarth, K., Sattler, P., Zimmermann, H.G., and Konietschke, F. (2021). Estimation and testing of Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney effects in factorialclustered data designs. Symmetry, 14.10.3390/sym14020244 ↗
43. Fast power flow scheduling and sensitivity analysis for sizing a microgrid with storage10.1016/j.matcom.2015.11.010 ↗
44. Stochastic optimization of two-machine flow shop robotic cells with controllable inspection times: From theory toward practice10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101822 ↗