Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine which forms of compensation are more efficient at affecting employee attitudes, thus extending efficiency wage theory from wage-based compensation to profit sharing and stock-based compensation.

Three models of efficiency wage theory were tested: shirking, turnover and gift exchange. The effects of those three modes of compensation (wages, profit sharing and stock) were contrasted for the three models of efficiency wage theory.

The findings were that raising wages is the most efficient form of compensation in the turnover and shirking models, while in the gift exchange model profit sharing and stock-based compensation may function like efficiency wages.

This is the first study of this particular issue.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: What happens to the outcomes of pay dispersion when the employees own stock in their own company?

The data set consisted of over 20,000 employee surveys. Pay dispersion was measured with the Gini coefficient. The outcome variables were attitudes and behaviors with numerous controls. The moderation effect of employee ownership was investigated at the individual and group level using multilevel regression analysis.

Most hypothesized outcomes did not yield statistically significant results. The results that were statistically significant had two patterns: first, higher pay dispersion was consistently associated with improved attitudes and behaviors; and second, employee ownership moderated the outcomes of pay dispersion for certain outcomes and job types (e.g. perceptions of company fairness among administrative support personnel, or absenteeism and production personnel). There was no evidence to support a link between pay dispersion and attitudes across job types (vertical), only within job types (horizontal).

All the data were self-reported in surveys. Attitudes were measured with single items rather than validated scales. The data were cross-sectional, so no causality can be inferred.

While both higher pay dispersion and employee ownership can motivate employees, the interaction between them can be negative, especially in a cooperative environment. Consideration should be given to this when designing compensation packages.

There was a surprisingly strong link between higher pay differentials and improved attitudes, suggesting that the opportunity for higher pay is more influential than any feelings of inequity.

The effect of employee ownership on the outcomes of pay dispersion has never been investigated. This should be valuable given how widely higher pay is used to attract, retain and motivate employees (leading to pay dispersion) as well as how increasingly popular employee ownership is becoming.

The purpose of this study is to understand how majority employee-owned firms responded to the pandemic compared to firms that were not majority employee-owned. The Employee Ownership Foundation partnered with Rutgers University and the SSRS survey firm to survey ESOP and non-ESOP firms about their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. A key purpose of the survey was to estimate firm-level changes in employment from mid-January to August (current employment figures were adjusted to August 5 using BLS industry employment trends). The survey also looked at other forms of adjustment and responses to the pandemic as reviewed below. The focus in this study is on the differences between firms that are majority owned by ESOPs and those that are not.

The survey included 247 executives from ESOP Association member companies and 500 executives from an SSRS business panel constructed to be representative of US companies with 50 or more employees. The survey started on August 5 and ended on September 23, 2020.

(1) Majority ESOP firms had employment declines from January to August that were on average only one-fourth as large as for other firms. The difference is maintained when controlling for industry membership. (2) Majority ESOP firms were more likely to be declared “essential,” but the lower employment cutbacks among majority ESOP firms remain among essential and non-essential businesses. As essential businesses, majority ESOP firms were more likely receive Paycheck Protection Program or other government pandemic assistance, but both assistance recipients and non-recipients had lower employment cutbacks among majority ESOP firms. (3) The extent of employment cutbacks was higher for non-managers than for managers, but the manager/non-manager gap was higher among other firms than among majority ESOP firms.

This study supports empirical findings done previously.

This study suggests to non-EO firms what they can do.

This study suggests strengths of EO firms.

A very original and one-of-a-kind dataset.

Using a population study, we provide evidence on the important but understudied issue of company survival under employee ownership, as well as on the performance effects of employee ownership and the issue of whether employee ownership substitutes for other pension benefits.

Company survival and pension benefits are assessed using a unique dataset from Dun & Bradstreet of privately held Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) companies over the 1988–1999 period, matched to non-ESOP companies in the same industry. Performance is assessed using pre/post-comparisons of ESOP adopters in the 1988–1994 period.

Privately held ESOP companies in 1988 were only half as likely as non-ESOP firms to go bankrupt or close over the 1988–1999 period, and only three-fifths as likely to disappear for any reason. The ESOP companies had significantly higher post-adoption annual employment and sales growth, along with higher sales per employee. ESOP companies are four times more likely than their non-ESOP pairs to have defined benefit pension plan and other forms of defined contribution plans.

The greater survival was not explained by higher productivity, or by greater compensation flexibility. The higher survival may instead be tied to complementary policies adopted along with ESOPs to create a more committed and engaged workforce that contributes ideas to enhance survival and is more flexible when economic difficulties arise. The pension results are consistent with other studies on compensation under employee ownership, suggesting that employee ownership is generally used as a form of efficiency wage to provide above-market compensation.

Higher survival among ESOP companies could result in lower job loss and unemployment, potentially providing a public policy rationale for support of employee ownership.

The chapter provides the first examination of company survival in privately held ESOP companies, and one of the few examinations of how ESOPs relate to other pension benefits.

Past research has found employee ownership to be linked to better attitudes and behaviors. We investigate three possible mechanisms: (a) a selection effect – employees who buy stock in their own company may have better attitudes to begin with; (b) a status effect – employees who have any amount of employee ownership may have better attitudes; and (c) a size of stake effect – employee attitudes and behaviors may be influenced by the size of their employee ownership stake. We used a rich database of over 40,000 employee surveys from one large multinational company and 13 other companies. We find some support for all three mechanisms. Selection effects are indicated by several positive relationships between attitudes and stock that is bought by the employees rather than being granted by the employer. Status and size of stake effects are indicated by several positive relationships between attitudes and stock that is granted by the employer, particularly when the employee ownership is accompanied by high-performance work policies. While dividing employee ownership into bought or granted stock sheds light on the selection issue, the data are cross-sectional so selection and causality cannot be firmly established. There is need for further research on selection versus causality in examining the effects of employee ownership. The results indicate that companies may improve employee attitudes and behaviors of people by granting them stock and by having opportunities for employees to purchase stock. Even the results pointing to selection effects, however, can be important for companies, since offering stock ownership opportunities to employees may be an effective way to identify which employees are most committed to the firm and are likely to become good corporate citizens.