Search results

We collect data on CEO pay in 122 closely held firms traded on the Tel-Aviv Stock Exchange during 1995–2001. After estimating CEO pay performance sensitivity and CEO “excess pay,” we examine how these two pay attributes affect end of period (year 2001) Tobin's Q. Our main findings and conclusions are that (1) when CEO is from the controlling family, the end of period Q is negatively correlated with “excess” pay – “excess” pay to family-CEOs appears like a form of private benefits; (2) when a professional nonowner CEO runs the firm, end of period Q is positively correlated with CEO pay performance sensitivity – incentives to professional CEOs help promote firm value.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of corporate governance (CG) on chief executive officer compensation (CEO COMP) and pay–performance relationship (PPR) in Indian listed firms.

A sample of 196 companies listed on the S&P BSE 500 (Standard and Poor's Bombay Stock Exchange 500) Index has been analyzed using the panel (random effects) regression technique over the period 2010–2019. In addition, the system GMM technique was used to deal with the endogeneity issue.

The study found that block ownership and ownership concentration negatively impact COMP measures and PPR. Board size also had a negative direct and moderating impact on CEO COMP; however, the linkages were generally insignificant, especially for total pay. Similarly, outsider blockholders were found to be playing an insignificant role. Further, board independence positively influences COMP levels and PPR, though the results were mixed with respect to significance. Finally, CEO duality positively and significantly influences CEO COMP and PPR. A comparison before and after the new Indian Companies Act 2013 also revealed similar results, particularly in the after period. It suggests that the new legislative initiative was not effective enough in improving the CG and, hence, the alignment of pay with performance.

This study investigates the direct and moderating impact of CG on CEO COMP in the context of emerging economy India. Further, it makes a comparison before and after the introduction of the new governance reform, that is, the Indian Companies Act, 2013. Moreover, providing support to the entrenchment effect, the study reveals that large shareholders expropriate minority shareholders’ wealth by not aligning CEO pay with performance, making agency problems graver in emerging economies like India.

The purpose of this study is threefold: to examine the impact of a remuneration committee (RC) on the level of chief executive officer (CEO) remuneration; whether firms with a RC, pay a premium to CEOs with different skill sets (general or specific); and whether a pay premium mitigates the potential for CEO turnover.

This study uses a sample of 5,305 firm-year observations on a data set drawn from companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange for the period 2007 to 2014. The authors use ordinary least squares as well as logit regression techniques to test the formulated hypotheses. Difference in difference and propensity score matching techniques were undertaken to address the endogeneity concerns.

The findings show that firms with a RC pay a higher total remuneration to CEOs compared to firms without a RC. Furthermore, firms with a RC, value and reward CEOs with general skills by paying a premium not offered to CEOs with industry-specific skills. Paying a premium, in turn, mitigates CEO turnover by strengthening the CEO’s commitment to the organisation.

The study helps us to understand the critical role played by the RC in the remuneration of CEOs. The findings show that RCs act as an effective governance mechanism to deal with issues of executive remuneration and to retain skilled CEOs. Additionally, CEOs who acquire and develop general managerial skills will be able to extract higher pay from improved bargaining power. The findings will be of relevance to shareholders, regulators and company management who have an interest in executive pay and performance.

This study aims to examine whether chief executive officer (CEO) pay-performance sensitivity to shareholder wealth is related to the use of non-financial performance measures in incentive contracts.

Using hand-collected performance measure data in a sample of S&P 500 firms across the period 1994–2010, this study investigates the sensitivity of CEO bonus and cash pay to shareholder wealth of firms that use non-financial performance (NFPM) measures of varying types and contractual weights in their bonus contracts along with financial measures (NFPM firms) in comparison to that of firms using financial measures only (FPM firms).

This study finds evidence that the pay-performance sensitivity is stronger in NFPM firms than in FPM firms. These results are driven by the use of CEO individual goals and operational efficiency. Furthermore, when using environmental, social and governance factors, the pay-performance sensitivity is stronger in terms of accounting performance only. This study also finds that using NFPM enhances pay-performance sensitivity more as their contractual weights increase and as financial risk increases.

These findings are important to stakeholders, and especially regulators in understanding incentive effects of alternative performance measures. This study also sheds light on what types of non-financial measures are better in helping firms align CEOs’ incentives to shareholders’ interests.

This study contributes to prior research on benefits of non-financial information within the context of executive compensation. This study presents original results about the effects of contractual weights of non-financial measures and financial risk on CEO pay-performance sensitivity. This study also presents new insights regarding how different types of non-financial measures affect CEO pay-performance sensitivity.

This paper aims to elaborate upon the work of Aguinis and colleagues (this issue), who showed that there is almost no overlap between the chief executive officers (CEOs; of American publicly traded corporations) who are in the upper tail of the CEO pay distribution and the firms that are in the upper tail of the performance distribution.

This paper is an essay/commentary regarding the merits and implications of the paper by Aguinis and colleagues.

Drawing upon prior work, the author proposes that CEOs’ tenure-long pay patterns are established – essentially baked-in or hardwired – when CEOs first get hired. For various reasons, some CEOs receive ultra-grand pay packages at the outset of their tenures, and nothing – including mediocre performance – brings about subsequent diminishment of those sweet terms.

This paper sheds new light on the work by Aguinis and colleagues, in turn contributing new insights about the fairness (or lack thereof) of CEO pay determinations.

This paper integrates Aguinis and colleagues with prior works on CEO over- and underpayment.

El presente comentario se sustenta sobre el trabajo de Aguinis y colegas (este número) que muestra que apenas existe coincidencia entre los Consejeros Delegados (CEOs) de las empresas cotizadas americanas con mayor retribución y las empresas que mejores resultados obtienen.

Este artículo es un ensayo/comentario acerca de los méritos y las implicaciones del artículo de Aguinis y colegas.

Tomando como base un trabajo previo, el autor propone que los patrones de antigüedad-retribución se definen cuando el Consejero Delegado es contratado por primera vez. Por varias razones, algunos Consejeros Delegados reciben una gran retribución al inicio de su carrera en la empresa, y nada –ni siquiera unos resultados mediocres- reduce esa retribución.

El artículo arroja luz sobre el trabajo de Aguinis y colegas, y contribuye al debate acerca de la justicia (o ausencia de ésta) en la definición de los salarios de los Consejeros Delegados.

El artículo integra el trabajo de Aguinis y otros en la literatura previa sobre la sobre o infra-retribución de los Consejeros Delegados.

Este comentário sobre o trabalho de Aguinis e colaboradores (este número), que mostram que quase não há coincidência entre os CEOs (das empresas americanas de capital aberto) que estão na parte superior da distribuição de pagamento do CEO e as empresas que estão na parte superior da distribuição de desempenho.

Este artigo é um ensaio/comentário sobre os méritos e as implicações do artigo de Aguinis e colaboradores.

Tomando como base um trabalho prévio, o autor propõe que os padrões de antiguidade/retribuição se definam quando o CEO é contratado pela primeira vez. Por várias razões, alguns CEOs recebem uma retribuição grande ao início da sua carreira na empresa, y nada – nem uns resultados medíocres -reduzem essa retribuição.

O artigo lança nova luz sobre o trabalho de Aguinis e colaboradores, contribuindo com novos conhecimentos sobre a equidade (ou a falta) das determinações de pagamento dos CEOs.

O artigo integra o trabalho de Aguinis y colaboradores na literatura prévia sobre a infra-retribuição dos CEOs.

The purpose of this paper is to enrich the finding by Aguinis et al. (2018) that there is little overlap between the extremes of firm performance and the extremes of CEO pay using a novel approach to characterize the distribution of pay and performance. The authors aim to shift the focus of compensation researchers from fruitlessly trying to link pay to performance to theory-rich accounts of pay that take into consideration the idiosyncratically motivated and socially embedded nature of CEO compensation.

The authors’ approach in this commentary is conceptual. They synthesize compensation literature from different fields such as economics, finance, sociology, strategic management and corporate law, as well as the empirical findings from the focal paper to support their characterization of the current state of the literature and future directions it should take.

The authors synthesize discussion of CEO pay down to three dimensions of CEO responsibilities and motivations. They argue that a realistic pay design should take into account that CEOs have limited control over performance, they are accountable to multiple stakeholders and they are motivated by financial as well as nonfinancial incentives.

The commentary presents researchers with high-order framing of CEO pay that goes beyond debating over methodology or narrowly focusing on limited behavioral drivers of pay setting. Instead, the authors encourage researchers to take advantage of their three-legged framework to theorize about CEO pay.

El objetivo de este comentario es enriquecer el hallazgo de Aguinis y otros (2018) de que existe poco solapamiento entre los extremos del resultado organizativo y los extremos de la retribución del CEO utilizando una aproximación novedosa para caracterizar ambas distribuciones. Queremos cambiar el foco de los investigadores de tratar inútilmente de vincular retribución y resultados hacia explicaciones basadas en teoría que tomen en consideración la naturaleza idiosincrática y socialmente embebida de la retribución del CEO.

Nuestra aproximación es conceptual. Sintetizamos la literatura sobre retribución de diferentes campos como la economía, las finanzas, la sociología, la gestión estratégica o la legal, así como los resultados empíricos del artículo central de este número para sostener nuestra caracterización del estado del arte de la literatura y las direcciones que debería tomar en el futuro.

Sintetizamos la discusión sobre la retribución del CEO en tres dimensiones de responsabilidad del CEO y motivaciones. Argumentamos que un diseño realista de la retribución deben tener en cuenta que los CEO tienen un control limitado sobre los resultados, son responsables antes varios grupos de interés (stakeholders), y están motivados por incentivos financieros y no financieros.

Nuestro comentario va más allá del debate sobre la metodología, o de un enfoque estrecho sobre los determinantes conductuales de la fijación de la retribución. Por el contrario, animamos a los investigadores a utilizar nuestro marco de tres pilares para teorizar sobre la retribución del CEO.

O objetivo deste comentário é ampliar os achados de Aguinis et al. (2018) de que há pouca correlação entre os extremos da performance da empresa e da remuneração do CEO, usando uma abordagem inovadora para caracterizar a distribuição do pagamento e performance. Nosso objetivo é mudar o foco dos pesquisadores em remuneração, de indevidamente vincularem remuneração à performance, para teorias bem desenvolvidas sobre remuneração que considerem a natureza da remuneração do CEO como motivada de maneira idiossincrática e dependente do seu contexto social.

Nossa abordagem nesse comentário é conceitual. Nós sintetizamos a literatura sobre remuneração de diferentes áreas, como economia, finanças, sociologia, gestão estratégica e direito corporativo, bem como os achados empíricos do artigo central desse comentário, para dar suporte à nossa caracterização do estado da arte e das direções futuras que a literatura deveria tomar.

Nós sintetizamos a discussão sobre a remuneração do CEO em três dimensões de responsabilidades e motivações do CEO. Nós argumentamos que um plano de pagamento realista deve levar em conta que os CEOs têm controle limitado sobre os resultados, eles são responsáveis perante os stakeholders, e eles são motivados por incentivos financeiros e não financeiros.

O nosso comentário apresenta aos pesquisadores uma estrutura conceitual para remuneração de CEOs que vai além do debate sobre a metodologia, ou do foco limitado nos determinantes comportamentais da configuração da remuneração. Ao invés disso, incentivamos os pesquisadores a utilizar nossa estrutura de três pilares para teorizar sobre o pagamento do CEO.

Reviews previous research on the effects of CEO compensation structure, outlines the criteria for relative performance evaluation (RPE) and notes the paucity of empirical evidence to support it. Reports a study of the use of RPE for US bank CEO compensation 1976‐1988; and its relationship to shareholder, market and industry returns. Explains the methodology and presents the results, which suggest that CEO pay is positively linked to firm performance, but negatively linked to market/industry performance; and that performance is positively linked to CEO option wealth. Adds that both the pay/performance link and the use of RPE increased after bank deregulation in the early 1980s. Considers consistency with other research and concludes that the reduction in compensation risk offered by RPE should reduce compensation cost and thus provide a good reason for the banking industry to increase its use.

To provide insight, explanation, and empirical evidence into how and why CEOs get paid the amounts that they do.

This paper blends several methodologies. Using qualitative interviews with several high level managers, it develops a coding listing to capture how pharmaceutical firms compete within their industry. The paper then uses a structured content analysis approach to capture the specific and observable competitive moves that pharmaceutical firms launch.

Base pay and bonus of the CEO are greater for firms that launch higher volumes of competitive actions. Furthermore, the variety of competitive moves appears to influence a CEO's base salary.

This study has limited external validity since the firms in this sample are all large US pharmaceutical firms. The research implication is that, to date, firm size and past performance were identified as the single greatest predictors of CEO pay. Findings from this study suggest that how a firm behaves in a competitive context is as important as static characteristics of the firm (e.g. size) in predicting CEO pay levels.

Findings of this study begin to inform how directors may arrive at compensation decisions for CEOs. Since governance and CEO pay is becoming a more salient topic, this study suggests that directors can be trained or counseled on how to make more appropriate and refined decisions regarding CEO pay.

This paper employs a unique methodology to arrive at a question that is important, but under‐researched. Namely, we inform audiences who are concerned with how and why CEO's get paid what they do. Because CEO paychecks are a significant organizational expense, more research into how and why CEOs get paid a certain level is important theoretically and practically.

The purpose of the study is to set a research agenda so that future conceptual and empirical research can improve the understanding of why CEO pay and CEO performance are decoupled.

The paper compiles and adds to many of the explanations provided by this special issue’s nine commentaries regarding why CEO pay and CEO performance are decoupled. These explanations were grouped into two categories: economic (e.g. marginal productivity theory, agency theory and behavioral agency model) and social-institutional-psychological (e.g. CEO individual differences and characteristics and CEO-organization interactions). Moreover, new analyses based on additional data were conducted to examine measurement-related explanations for the observed pay-performance decoupling.

Results based on alternative measures of pay and performance confirmed, once again, the existence of pay-performance decoupling.

This paper will stimulate research pitting theoretical explanations against each other to understand their relative validity in different contexts.

The paper informs ongoing efforts to link CEO pay to performance.

The paper also revisits the decoupling of CEO pay and firm performance from a normative and value-based perspective (i.e. regarding whether pay and performance should be related).

The paper clarifies that the articles in this special issue largely concluded that CEO pay is decoupled from CEO performance.

Objetivo – El objetivo es proponer una ageda de investigación de forma que la futura investigación conceptual y empírica pueda mejorar la comprensión sobre por qué la retribución y el rendimiento del CEO no están conectados.

Diseño/metodología/aproximación – El artículo compila y añade a la mayoría de las explicaciones proporcionados por los nueve comentarios publicados en este número especial acerca de porqué la retribución y el rendimiento del CEO están desconectados. Estas explicaciones se agrupan en dos categorías: económicas (e.g. teoría de la productividad marginal, teoría de agencia, modelo de agencia comportamental) y socio-institucional-psicológicas (e.g. diferencias y características individuales del CEO, interacción CEO-organización). Además, se llevan a cabo nuevos análisis sobre datos adicionales para examinar algunas explicaciones relativas a la medición para la falta de conexión entre retribución del CEO y su rendimiento.

Resultados – Los resultados basados en medidas alternativas de retribución y rendimiento confirman, una vez más, la existencia de una desconexión entre ambas magnitudes.

Limitaciones/implicaciones – Este artículo estimulará a investigación contraponiendo diferentes explicaciones teóricas para entender su validez relativa en diferentes contextos.

Implicaciones prácticas – El artículo informa sobre los esfuerzos actuals para relacionar la retribución del CEO y su rendimiento.

Implicaciones sociales – El artículo revisa la desconexión entre la retribución y el rendimiento del CEO desde una perspectiva normativa y de valor (i.e. sobre si la retribución y el rendimiento deben estar conectados).

Originalidad/valor – El artículo clarifica que los artículos en este número especial concluyen que la retribución del CEO está desconectada de su rendimiento.

O objetivo é estabelecer uma agenda de investigação para que futuros estudos conceptuais ou empíricos possam melhorar a compreensão do porquê de a compensação do CEO e o desempenho do CEO estarem dissociados.

Metodologia – O artigo compila e acrescenta às muitas explicações fornecidas pelos oito comentários deste número especial sobre as razões da dissociação da compensação e do desempenho do CEO. Estas explicações agrupam-se em duas categorias: económicas (eg., teoria da produtividade marginal, teoria da agência, modelo da agência comportamental) e Socio-institucional-psicológicas (eg., características e diferenças individuais do CEO, interações CEO-Organização). Além disso, conduziram-se novas análises baseadas em dados para examinar explicações baseadas em medições para a dissociação pagamento-desempenho.

Resultados – Resultados baseados em medidas alternativas de pagamento e desempenho confirmaram, uma vez mais, a existência da dissociação entre pagamento e performance.

Limitações/implicações – Este artigo estimula investigação que contraponha diferentes explicações teóricas, para perceber a sua validade relativa em diferentes contextos.

Implicações práticas – O artigo dá informação sobre esforços em curso para ligar a compensação do CEO ao desempenho.

Implicações sociais – O artigo revisita a dissociação do pagamento e desempenho da empresa Numa perspectiva normative e baseada em valores (ie, sobre se a compensação e a performance devem estar relacionadas).

Originalidade/valor – O paper clarifica que os artigos neste número especial basicamente concluiram que a compensação do CEO está dissociala do desempenho do CEO.

This article discusses the pay packages of executive officers at internetrelated business. Generally, the executives’ total compensation include salary, bonuses, commissions, stock options, and other financial compensation, such as forgiveness of loans, automobile expenses, etc. The 70 to 80 percent of the CEOs’ compensations are from gains of exercising stocks. In this tumbling market, shareholders are suffering the loss from the declining stock prices. However, many CEOs are still left with a mountain of wealth. Meanwhile, the board of directors also raises the stock options to retain their top talents even to those who are under‐performing. Besides CEOs’ compensations, we will also compare the CEO pay with non‐CEO pay packages. The CEOs compensations are still the highest. Furthermore, the average CEO made 42 times the average hourly worker’s pay in 1980, 85 times in 1990, and a staggering 531 times in 2000. Many shareholders are against these out of control pay packages. We conclude that it is time to review the process of determining the CEOs compensation, and that the significant presence of pay‐by‐performance should be taken into account in any examination of the practice and regulation of corporate governance.