Search results

This paper aims to examine the economic and psychological mechanisms in turnover at the managerial level. The paper investigates how (1) the ease of moving posed by alternative jobs (i.e. the economic mechanism) and (2) the desire to move due to low job satisfaction (i.e. the psychological mechanism) simultaneously influence top management team (TMT) turnover and these managers' subsequent job position and pay.

Using 25 years of panel data on more than 2,000 top managers in the United States, the paper utilizes fixed-effects logistic regressions and the ordinary least squares model to test the hypotheses.

The authors find that CEO awards (an economic mechanism) and low compensation (a psychological mechanism) independently have positive effects on turnover. Turnover due to the economic mechanism leads to a higher position and pay, whereas turnover due to the psychological mechanism does not guarantee the same outcome. Further, when examining how pay dissatisfaction influences turnover simultaneously with CEO awards, the authors find that managers with the highest pay leave their firm, and not those with the lowest pay.

The paper employs the pull-and-push theory in the employee turnover literature and applies it to the top management team literature. By doing so, this paper contributes original insights to how economic and psychological mechanisms simultaneously affect managerial turnover and its subsequent outcomes.

Research has focused primarily on the antecedents that influence the risk taking of CEOs themselves. This study examines how an important event experienced by a CEO at a direct rival firm influences a CEO's risk-taking. It also examines how prior firm performance relative to aspirations moderates the relationship.

In order to test the hypothesis, the authors perform an a difference-in-differences methodology.

Using a difference-in-differences methodology, we find that when a CEO wins a prestigious CEO award, competitor CEOs increase their firm risk-taking in the post-award period. The proclivity becomes stronger when their prior firm performance relative to aspirations is better. These findings suggest that a CEO winning a prominent CEO award influences competitor CEOs' risk-taking.

This study contributes to the literature on managerial risk-taking by highlighting that a star CEO winning a prominent award may serve as a striving aspiration and induce competitor CEOs to take risks, and that two different types of aspirations – striving and competitive aspirations – interact to influence the competitor CEOs' risk-taking.

We investigate the impact of the creation of a new incentive structure for CEOs resulting from firms introducing equity-based compensation (EBC) as a means of paying top executives on policy decisions. Contrasting a firm’s stock and operating performance in the period the CEO is compensated with EBC (EBC period) and the period when EBC is not a component of the same executive’s pay (No EBC period) leads us to conclude that awarding stock options and restricted shares to executives is not associated with improved firm performance. However, firms initiate EBC after superior performance suggesting that CEOs are awarded compensation in this form as a reward for past performance. Firms have higher unsystematic and total risk levels in the EBC period suggesting EBC influences CEOs’ risk-taking behavior and reduces agency costs arising from managerial risk aversion. While there is no change in R&D expenses and cash ratios there is a decrease in capital expenditures in the EBC period, which is consistent with reduced overinvestment agency costs. Finally, leverage and payout ratios are similar in both periods implying that firms’ financing policy is not influenced by changes in CEOs’ compensation structure.

The purpose of this paper is to provide new evidence on the choice of performance measures used in dual-class firms to incentivize CEOs.

This paper uses coarsened exact matching and propensity score matching to match the dual-class firm sample with a control group of single-class firms. This study uses matching estimators to provide an analysis of how a dual-class structure affects the design of performance measures in performance-based stock awards. In addition, regression models are used to investigate the effect of a dual-class structure on performance measure choices.

This paper finds that market-based metrics are less likely to be used by dual-class firms relative to single-class firms. In addition, peer-based measures are much less common for dual-class than single-class firms. This study also finds that the length of the CEO’s performance evaluation period does not differ between dual-class and single-class firms.

This paper attempts to investigate the choice of performance measures to find out the extent to which the board of directors focuses CEO efforts on firms’ long-term versus short-term objectives.

The findings reveal the relationships between the dual-class stock structure and the contractual features of CEO performance-based stock awards, provide empirical evidence for the company’s compensation committee and provide implications for the evolving practices of performance measures regarding CEO stock compensation. The findings are also useful to regulators, compensation consultants and firms pursuing efficient design of executive compensation.

This paper is among the first to study the determinants of compensation contracts. Second, prior literature seldom controls for CEO stock ownership, but this study matches dual-class firms to a control group of single-class firms that are similar in terms of CEO stock ownership and other important firm characteristics. Finally, these findings suggest that dual-class firms shield their executives from short-term market pressures and design stock compensation contracts that deemphasize volatile stock prices.

Reports citing excessive CEO compensation continue to make the news with evidence of peer relationships between the CEO and the compensation committee often the center of debate. The compensation committee of the board of directors determines CEO pay and is often comprises CEOs from other companies as well as non-CEOs such as academic, exgovernment, and professional individuals. This study examines the influence of the psychological factor of social comparison over accounting performance measures in a compensation experiment with 176 subjects. The results of this study are consistent with social comparison theory in that CEO director-subjects award greater pay and shield the compensation of the CEO when firm accounting performance is below average. Additionally, we find shielding is mitigated when subjects are informed that the decision of the amount of compensation awarded will be revealed to the public.

Following the optimal contracting hypothesis, this study investigates the issue of whether the board of director's ex ante choice to incorporate individual performance evaluation (IPE) measures into the CEO bonus plan rewards managerial decisions not reflected in measures of the firm's current financial performance. Empirical results provide evidence that the use of IPE in the CEO bonus plan is an increasing function of the proportion of outsider directors on the board and a decreasing function of the informativeness of financial performance measures. This study also demonstrates how the use of IPE in incentive contracting can explain CEO cash compensation that is not explained by the firm's current performance and governance variables. Finally, the CEO incentive cash compensation not explained by observable performance measures or governance structure is positively associated with firm future performance one year after its award. Overall, results support the optimal contracting hypothesis. IPE appears to be used to increase the informativeness of CEO actions and determine the level of current CEO cash incentive compensation.

The paper aims to examine whether and under what circumstances social status of chief executives can be associated with corporate financial decisions, in particular via risk aversion or risk loving to the extent of mergers and acquisitions.

The authors use mixed methods, drawing metrics of social status (acquired and ascribed) from anthropological and sociological research, applying these, and then using panel econometrics to check the statistical importance of the uncovered relationships.

The authors find in the paper that it is possible, for FTSE companies, to successfully measure and apply measures of social status from public records; they find strong evidence of a negative relationship between CEO ascribed and achieved social status and his or her acquisitiveness. However, the influence of achieved status appears to be more consistent and significant than that of the ascribed status, indicating its dominant role in determining overall attained status.

The research is limited in its data coverage, to FTSE members. However, it does show that it is possible to take useful and meaningful concepts from areas quite removed from traditional finance and to incorporate these into a traditional finance methodology.

The paper has practical implications for both aspirant and existing corporate officers and for investors.

Social status is omnipresent and poorly understood as a mitigator or enabler of financial transactions, although there is some evidence that it is important.

This research bridges a gap that has heretofore only been very sparsely mapped, and provides suggested routes for further research.

There has been concern expressed in the financial press and focus established in the accounting literature over rising levels of executive compensation. Individuals on the compensation committee, a sub-committee of the board of directors, collectively determine executive compensation and are responsible for maintaining the pay-for-performance standard, a concept that warrants further attention. This study examines the process of exaggeration of a group decision over individual beliefs and the impact of leadership upon a committee's outcome when making compensation awards. In an experiment with 98 subjects role-playing as compensation committee members, results show that in a committee of individuals where a coterie and a majority belief is present, group polarization occurs and the compensation results are exaggerated as compared to individual beliefs. The findings also suggest, though, that the appointment of a leader as chair of the committee, either in the majority or minority view, has a moderating effect on the group outcome. These results highlight and add to the literature the potential for agency costs in the group decision process that may be found in the executive compensation-setting environment.

This study aims to explore the role of board gender diversity in mitigating chief executive officer (CEO) luck. CEOs are “lucky” when they receive stock option grants on days when the stock price is the lowest in the month of the grant, implying opportunistic timing.

This study uses a logistic regression analysis and an instrumental-variable analysis. The sample consists of 3,249 firm-year observations from 2010 through 2015.

The results show that female directors significantly deter the opportunistic timing of option grants. This study finds that gender diversity – as measured by the percentage of women on the board, the percentage of female independent directors and the percentage of female directors on the compensation committee are likely to reduce the odds that CEOs receive opportunistically timed lucky grants. The results are consistent with those in prior research that documents the benefits of board gender diversity.

The research findings are beneficial to policymakers and regulators, as it allows them to assess the importance of diversity on boards in the monitoring of the managers, particularly as it pertains to the design of CEO compensation packages. Furthermore, these findings have implications for Ibero-American countries as they shed light on the importance to undertake measures and reforms to promote board effectiveness by the introduction of gender diversity.

While prior research has examined the effect of board gender diversity on firm performance, the study is the first to investigate the effect of female directors on the opportunistic timing of option grants, using a rigorous empirical framework that explicitly accounts for endogeneity.

Este estudio busca explorar el papel de la diversidad de género en la junta directiva para mitigar la suerte del CEO. Los directores ejecutivos tienen “suerte” cuando reciben subvenciones de opciones sobre acciones en los días en que el precio de las acciones es el más bajo en el mes de la subvención, lo que implica un momento oportunista.

Empleamos un análisis de regresión logística, así como un análisis de variables instrumentales (IV). La muestra consta de 3249 observaciones de las firmas desde 2010 hasta 2015.

Nuestros resultados muestran que las directoras disuaden significativamente el momento oportunista de la concesión de opciones. Descubrimos que la diversidad de género, medida por el porcentaje de mujeres en la junta directiva, el porcentaje de directoras independientes y el porcentaje de directoras en el comité de compensación probablemente reduzcan las probabilidades de que los directores ejecutivos reciban subvenciones afortunadas en el momento oportuno. Nuestros resultados son consistentes con los de investigaciones anteriores que documentan los beneficios de la diversidad de género en la junta.

Los resultados de la investigación son relevantes para los responsables de la formulación de políticas y los reguladores, ya que les permite evaluar la importancia de la diversidad en los directorios en el seguimiento de los gerentes, particularmente en lo que respecta al diseño de paquetes de compensación de los directores ejecutivos. Además, estos hallazgos tienen implicaciones para los países iberoamericanos, ya que arrojan luz sobre la importancia de emprender medidas y reformas para promover la efectividad de los directorios mediante la introducción de la diversidad de género.

Si bien investigaciones anteriores han examinado el efecto de la diversidad de género de la junta en el desempeño de la empresa, nuestro estudio es el primero en investigar el efecto de las directoras en el momento oportunista de las concesiones de opciones, utilizando un marco empírico riguroso que explica explícitamente la endogeneidad.

Este estudo busca explorar o papel da diversidade de gênero no conselho de administração para mitigar o destino do CEO. Os CEOs têm “sorte” de receber opções de compra de ações nos dias em que o preço das ações é mais baixo no mês de concessão, o que é um momento oportunista.

Foi utilizada uma análise de regressão logística, bem como uma análise de variáveis instrumentais (IV). A amostra é composta por 3.249 observações de empresas de 2010 a 2015.

Nossos resultados mostram que as diretoras inibem significativamente o momento oportunista de outorga de opções. Descobrimos que a diversidade de gênero, medida pela porcentagem de mulheres no conselho de administração, a porcentagem de conselheiros independentes e a porcentagem de diretoras no comitê de remuneração, provavelmente reduz as chances de CEOs receberem subsídios da sorte em tempo hábil. Nossos resultados são consistentes com pesquisas anteriores que documentam os benefícios da diversidade de gênero no conselho.

Os resultados da pesquisa são relevantes para os formuladores de políticas e reguladores, pois permitem que avaliem a importância da diversidade nos conselhos na gestão de gerentes, especialmente no que se refere ao desenho de políticas. Além disso, esses achados têm implicações para os países ibero-americanos, uma vez que lançam luz sobre a importância de empreender medidas e reformas para promover a eficácia dos conselhos por meio da introdução da diversidade de gênero.

embora a evidência científica prévia tenha examinado o efeito da diversidade de gênero do conselho no desempenho da empresa, nosso estudo é o primeiro a investigar o efeito das diretoras no momento oportunista de concessões de opções, usando uma estrutura empírica rigorosa que explica explicitamente a endogeneidade.