Search results

Based on the findings of Aguinis et al. (2018) that only a few executives are properly compensated, the purpose of this paper is to examine potential causes and consequences of CEO overpayment and underpayment. Ineffective compensation of the CEO represents a governance failure by the board of directors. Better understanding the reasons for such failures may help boards to correct their processes and to enact more effective governance. Boards must look beyond the normally constrained focus of agency theory to examine executive characteristics and motivation. Thus, tailoring compensation plans and governance to the executive and organizational context requires attention to a broader set of theoretical notions.

Using the Aguinis et al. (2018) work, this paper conceptually identifies and explains the causes and consequences of CEO overpayment and underpayment along with their implications for governance and future research.

This paper identifies potential reasons for CEO overpayment and underpayment. For example, in addition to poor hiring decisions and inadequately designed compensation plans, CEO overpayment can occur because of executive hubris and greed. Alternatively, CEO underpayment may occur because of a poorly designed plan, inadequate information about the external labor market and the executive’s interests in non-pecuniary benefits (e.g. socio-emotional wealth, altruism). Without proper monitoring and oversight by the board, firm performance commonly suffers.

This work extends our understanding of why CEOs may be overpaid (e.g. hubris, greed) and why some executives may accept underpayment (e.g. desire for non-pecuniary benefits from SEW or altruism). This paper explains the consequences of ineffective corporate governance practices that allow inefficient CEO compensation. Finally, this paper explores several contingencies that can affect the governance practices and research needed to enhance our knowledge of this important area.

Partiendo de los resultados de Aguinis et al (en prensa) de que solo unos pocos ejecutivos están retribuidos correctamente, examinamos las causas y las consecuencias potenciales del pago excesivo y pago insuficiente a los CEO. Una retribución inadecuada al CEO es un fallo de gobierno por parte del consejo de administración. Comprender mejor las razones de dichos fallos puede ayudar a los consejos a corregir sus propios procesos y desarrollar un gobierno corporativo más eficiente. Los consejos de administración deben mirar más allá de la teoría de agencia para examinar las características de los ejecutivos y su motivación. Por tanto, ajustar los planes de retribución y gobierno a los ejecutivos y al contexto organizativo requiere prestar atención a un conjunto más amplio de conceptos teóricos.

Utilizando el trabajo de Aguinis et al (en prensa), identificamos y explicamos las causas y consecuencia del pago excesivo y pago insuficiente a los CEO, junto con las implicaciones para el gobierno corporativo y la investigación futura.

Identificamos las posibles razones para el pago excesivo o insuficiente a los CEO. Por ejemplo, además de malas decisiones de contratación y planes de retribución mal diseñados, el pago excesivo puede deberse a la arrogancia y codicia de los ejecutivos. Alternativamente, el pago insuficiente puede generarse por un plan de retribución mal diseñado, por inadecuada información sobre el mercado laboral externo y el interés del ejecutivo en beneficios no pecuniarios (e.g., riqueza socio-emocional, altruismo). Sin una supervisión adecuada, los resultados de la empresa normalmente sufren.

Este trabajo amplia nuestra comprensión sobre porque los CEOs pueden recibir una retribución excesiva (e.g., arrogancia, codicia) mientras otros pueden aceptar un pago insuficiente (e.g., deseo de beneficios no pecuniarios o altruismo). Explicamos las consecuencias de un gobierno corporativo inadecuado que permiten una retribución ineficiente del CEO. Finalmente, exploramos varias contingencias que pueden afectar a las prácticas de gobierno y que la investigación deben considerar para mejorar nuestro conocimiento en esta importante área.

A partir dos resultados de Aguinis et al. (em imprensa) que apenas alguns executivos são pagos corretamente, examinamos as causas e as consequências potenciais do pagamento excessivo e do pagamento insuficiente ao CEO. Uma compensação inadequada ao CEO é uma decisão governamental do conselho de administração. Uma melhor compreensão das razões para tais falhas pode ajudar os conselhos a corrigir seus próprios processos e desenvolver uma governança corporativa mais eficiente. Os conselhos de administração devem olhar além da teoria da Agência para examinar as características dos executivos e sua motivação. Por conseguinte, ajustar a remuneração e os planos governamentais aos executivos e ao contexto organizacional requer atenção a um conjunto mais amplo de conceitos teóricos.

Usando o trabalho de Aguinis et al. (em imprensa), identificamos e explicamos as causas e consequências do pagamento excessivo e do pagamento insuficiente ao CEO, junto com as implicações para a governança corporativa e a pesquisa futura.

Identificamos as possíveis razões para pagamento excessivo ou insuficiente ao CEO. Por exemplo, além das pobres decisões de contratação e dos planos de compensação mal projetados, o excesso de pagamento pode ser devido à arrogância e ganância dos executivos. Alternativamente, o pagamento insuficiente pode ser gerado por um plano de compensação mal concebido, por informações inadequadas sobre o mercado de trabalho externo e o interesse do executivo em benefícios não-pecuniários (por exemplo, riqueza sócio emocional, altruísmo). Sem supervisão adequada, os resultados da empresa geralmente sofrem.

Este trabalho amplia o conhecimento sobre porque os CEOs podem receber a retribuição excessiva (por exemplo, arrogância, avidez) quando outros podem aceitar o pagamento insuficiente (por exemplo, o desejo por benefícios não-pecuniários ou altruísmo). Explicamos as consequências de uma governança corporativa inadequada que permite uma compensação ineficiente do CEO. Finalmente, exploramos várias contingências que podem afetar as práticas govern

How do business groups manage their internal processes? The purpose of this paper is to explore how board interlocks between members serve as control and coordination mechanisms within business groups. The authors propose that centrality of groups’ affiliates in the group network of interlocking directorates is shaped by agency and resource dependence forces. In particular, the authors examine the role of international board ties as a resource and information conduit.

This study leverages proprietary information on firm-to-firm transaction ties among all 155 affiliates belonging to a large Italian business group. The authors use network analysis to develop multiple measures of the centrality of each group member, and link these to resource transactions, ownership patterns and geographic distributions. The authors test the hypotheses in a structural equation model using LISREL.

The results demonstrate that both resource exchanges and the presence of cross-national relations increase an affiliate’s central position in the group’s network of board ties. In contrast, ownership ties between members were unrelated to affiliate centrality.

Internal governance mechanisms of business groups are rarely studied. While groups are often portrayed as inefficient or value-destroying, the analysis of proprietary firm data suggests a very different scenario: inter-unit ties are much more supportive of a model of business groups as strategic portfolios, using internal ties to share information and resources.

Firm internalization is a central concept within the business strategy literature, as part of the broader social sciences. The purpose of this paper is to show how and where MNE internalization theory can benefit from a social identity theory (SIT) perspective to better understand 21st-century multinational enterprises (MNEs).

This paper provides a review and future research agenda for the use of SIT related to MNE internalization theory. The authors complement an evolutionary review of SIT literature with a systematic bibliometric analysis identifying specific thematic gaps. Extending Buckley and Casson’s review of and future research agenda for MNE internalization theory, the authors propose three specific future research directions along with eight guiding research questions.

International business (IB) scholars are familiar with limited aspects of SIT and apply it only in certain research areas, mainly connected to human resource management and leadership, organizational identity and work-related outcomes or international marketing. Strategic management and strategy-oriented IB scholars are less familiar with SIT, despite growing interest in MNE micro-foundations and decision-making under uncertainty.

The authors position SIT as a natural meta-theoretical fit to MNE internalization theory. By providing a future research agenda along with eight supporting research questions, the authors help to advance the MNE internalization theory by linking individual, group and intergroup perspectives against a more socially nuanced, interactionist and dynamic view of MNEs and their decision-making.

This chapter describes how to use popular software programs (Hierarchical Linear Modeling, LISREL) to analyze multiwave panel data. We review prevailing methods for panel data analyzes in strategic management research and identify their limitations. Then, we explain how multilevel and latent growth modeling provide more rigorous methodologies for studying dynamic phenomena. We present an example illustrating how firm performance can initiate temporal change in the human and social capital of members of Board of Directors, using hierarchical linear modeling. With the same data set, we replicate this test with first-order factor latent growth modeling (LGM). Next, we explain how to use second-order factor LGM with panel data on employee cognitions. Finally, we review the relative advantages and disadvantages of these new data-analytical approaches.

This study is a replication of Tosi and Greckhamer's work examining how uncertainty avoidance, power distance, individualism and masculinity/femininity are related to total CEO pay, the ratio of variable to total CEO pay and the ratio of CEO pay to the pay of the lowest level employees in 23 countries. Its main purpose is to investigate whether the replication confirms, questions or extends the results of TG2004.

Tosi and Greckhamer used generalized linear modeling (GLS) to analyze the relationships between Hofstede's four cultural dimensions and CEO compensation. In the replication, the author used GLS to retest the original seven hypotheses with more recent data from Hofstede and test the same hypotheses relying on cultural values and practices scores from the GLOBE study. Further, using firm-level data unavailable for the original study, the author analyzed fixed and random effects in mixed models.

The replication generally confirms the findings of the original study for the effects of power distance, individualism and masculinity on CEO total pay. Results are mixed or indicate the lack of significant effect for other relationships.

This study reexamines the effects of country-level contextual variables in the area of CEO compensation.

The replication presents firm-level CEO compensation and firm performance data from 21 countries, extending the original study and unveiling possible spurious effects.

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.