## **Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS)**

Our final measure of management practices comes from a 16-question survey given to firm owners in 2017, derived from the Management and Organizational Practices Survey (MOPS). This survey was created by the U.S. Census Bureau, and was designed to enable basic management practices to be measured in a self-administered survey format. The survey asks questions related to monitoring, targeting, and incentives, and is intended to measure similar concepts to the WMS (Bloom et al, 2018). It was carried out by Innovations for Poverty Action during in-person visits to the firms, and firms were also asked to recall what these practices were five years earlier (in 2012). Table A6.1 shows that these data were collected for 95 firms.

# **Associations between different measures of management and over time**

The WMS and MOPs are collected in a much less in-depth way than the Anexo K, and measure different aspects of management. Table A7.1 looks at the baseline correlations between different measures. At baseline, the Anexo K management score has a correlation of 0.26 with the WMS management score, and 0.23 with the MOPS score. By way of comparison, the 38 management practices in Bloom et al. (2013) had a 0.40 correlation with the WMS score. The Anexo K is most highly correlated with the monitoring component of the WMS (correlation of 0.44). When we examine the five areas of the Anexo K, the finance, logistics and production scores are more highly correlated with the WMS than the HR and marketing scores. Recall the WMS does not measure marketing practices, and there is a difference in emphasis in how the two focus on human resource practices. The WMS is more focused on how good and bad performers are hired and rewarded, whereas the Anexo K has more of an emphasis on organizational culture and links to overall business strategy. Notably, while the MOPS and WMS are intended to measure similar concepts, the correlation between the 2012 (recalled) MOPs management score and the WMS is only 0.08, suggesting substantial noise in this measurement.

**<mark>Table A7.1: Correlations between baseline Management Measures</mark>**

||**WMS**<br>**Overall**|WMS<br>Operations|WMS<br>Monitoring|WMS<br>Targets|WMS<br>People|**MOPS**<br>**Overall**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Anexo K Overall Score**|**0.26**|0.16|0.44|0.04|0.11|**0.23**|
|Finance Score|0.28|0.22|0.46|0.07|0.07|0.15|
|HR Score|0.14|0.09|0.33|‐0.08|0.03|0.17|
|Logistics Score|0.23|0.12|0.32|0.07|0.13|0.31|
|Marketing Score|0.09|0.03|0.12|0.02|0.06|0.10|
|Production Score|0.26|0.14|0.40|0.07|0.13|0.17|
|**MOPS Overall**|**0.08**|0.00|0.04|0.07|0.10|1.00|

Figure A7.3 plots the cross-sectional and panel associations between measures. We see that the endline Anexo K has a cross-sectional correlation of 0.34 at endline with both the WMS and MOPS, and that the WMS and MOPS at endline still only have a correlation of 0.27. More starkly, there is no relationship between the WMS and Anexo K in the panel: firms that improve the most according to the Anexo K are unrelated to those that improve the most according to the WMS. This is also true of the association between changes in the MOPs and changes in the WMS. Recall 63