Search results

In this paper, we review the literature on pay variation (e.g., pay dispersion, pay compression, pay range) in organizations. Pay variation research has increased markedly in the past two decades and much progress has been made in terms of understanding its consequences for individual, team, and organizational outcomes. Our review of this research exposes several levels-related assumptions that have limited theoretical and empirical progress. We isolate the issues that deserve attention, develop an illustrative multilevel model, and offer a number of testable propositions to guide future research on pay structures.

The purpose of the paper is to explore the long-run impact of board governance and bank performance on executive remuneration. More specifically, the study addresses two objectives. First, the authors investigate the long-run relationship between pay and performance hold for the Indian banking industry. Second, the authors explore the moderating role of the board in explaining the relationship between executive pay and performance.

The study uses multivariate panel co-integration approaches, i.e. fully modified and dynamic ordinary least square, to explain the co-integrating relationship between executive pay, governance and performance of Indian banks. The analysis is conducted for the period from 2005 to 2018.

The results of co-integration tests reveal a long-run relationship between executive pay, board governance and bank performance. The long-run estimates produce evidence in favour of the dynamic agency theory, suggesting that the implications of asymmetric information can be mitigated by associating the current executive pay with the bank performance in the previous periods. The finding of this study reveals that improvements in the board quality serve as a monitoring tool to constrain excessive pay and moderate the executives’ pay. Furthermore, the interaction of performance and board governance negatively impacts pay, supporting a substitution approach. It implies that setting optimal pay packages for executives necessitates enhanced and efficient board governance practices.

The study recommends significant policy implications for regulators and the board of directors that executive pay significantly responds to the bank’s performance and good board governance practices in the long run.

This paper provides novel evidence of long-run pay-performance-governance relation using a panel co-integration approach.

My study examines the pay-for-performance relationship surrounding executive compensation in higher education. There has been much criticism of the rising levels of university presidential pay, particularly in the public sector, citing it is pay without performance. Public colleges and universities are funded by taxpayers; therefore, their expenditures are even more heavily scrutinized than private institutions. Many feel that university executives are overpaid and are not delivering a return in the form of enhanced institutional performance to their investors, the public. Growing student debt only adds intensity to the outcry against heightened compensation. Proponents of the increasing pay levels contend that the ever-changing role of the university president and competition in the marketplace for talent warrants such compensation. Using data obtained from The Chronicle of Higher Education and Integrated Postsecondary Education System websites, I find a highly significant and positive relationship between compensation for executives at four-year public institutions and both the levels of university endowment and enrollment. These results support the pay-for-performance debate. In contrast, results for other performance measures, scholarships and graduation rates, do not support the debate. My study contributes to the literature examining pay-for-performance in higher education with an empirical analysis examining the institutional determinants of executive compensation for public colleges and universities.

In this paper, the authors investigate whether an independent and gender-diverse compensation committee strengthens the relationship between top managers' pay and firm performance in Chinese companies. The authors also investigate whether the independent compensation committee composed of all male directors is effective in designing the optimal contract for executives.

The authors use data from A-share listed companies on the Shenzhen and Shanghai stock exchanges from 2005 to 2015. As a baseline methodology, the authors use pooled ordinary least square (OLS) regression to draw inferences. In addition, cluster OLS regression, two-stage least square regression, the two-stage Heckman test and the propensity score matching method are also used to control for endogeneity issues.

The authors find evidence that an independent or gender-diverse compensation committee strengthens the link between top managers' pay and firm performance; that the presence of a woman on the compensation committee enhances the positive influence of committee independence on this relationship; that a compensation committee's independence or gender diversity is more effective in designing top managers' compensation in legal-person-controlled firms than they are in state-controlled firms; that gender diversity on the compensation committee is negatively associated with top managers' total pay; and that an independent compensation committee pays top managers more.

The study results highlight the role of an independent compensation committee in designing optimal contracts for top managers. The authors provide empirical evidence that a woman on the compensation committee strengthens its objectivity in determining top managers' compensation. The study finding supports regulatory bodies' recommendations regarding independent and women directors.

The study findings contribute to the recent debate about gender equality around the globe. Given the discrimination against women, many regulatory bodies mandate a quota for women on corporate boards. The study findings support the regulatory bodies' recommendations by highlighting the economic benefit of having women in top management positions.

This study contributes to literature by investigating the largely overlooked questions of whether having a gender-diverse or independent compensation committee strengthens the relationship between top managers' pay and firm performance; whether an independent compensation committee is more efficient in setting executives' pay when it is gender-diverse; and whether the effect of independent directors and female directors on top managers' compensation varies based on the firm's ownership structure. Overall, the main contribution of the study is that the authors provide robust empirical evidence in support of the managerial power axiom.

This paper aims to examine the synchronous and lagged relationships between CEOs' pay and the performance of a group of public companies that had won a very prestigious award: the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA).

This study uses three rates of return to represent firm performance: return on assets, return on equity and holding period return. Regression analysis is used to determine the direction of causality between CEO pay and firm performance and the existence of lagged relationship between them.

The findings indicate the existence of synchronous and lagged relationships between CEO pay and firm performance. However, the direction of causality is mainly from pay to performance, and not vice versa.

The results presented in this paper are limited by the small sample size of MBNQA winning companies. Although the award began in 1988, only a few companies won the award each year and many of them were not public companies. In addition, five companies won the award twice and one company won the award three times, which further reduces the sample size.

This paper finds the existence of synchronous and lagged relationships between CEO pay and firm performance for a group of quality companies.

The current study aims to investigate the impact of firm performance on chief executive officer (CEO) remuneration in the context of an emerging market, i.e. Pakistan. Further, the interactive effect of financial constraints is investigated in the pay–performance relationship.

The study's sample includes 173 non-financial firms listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange. This study covers the years 2010–2019. The CEO compensation of the sample firms is measured in terms of salary and bonuses, perquisites and stock options paid to the CEO, whereas firm profitability is measured by return on assets, return on equity, Tobin's Q (Q) and earnings per share. The KZ Index measures the degree of financial constraint. The fixed effect model (FEM) and system GMM estimation techniques were used to conclude the study's findings. In addition, to test the robustness of the results, the authors computed the level of financial constraints using the WW Index.

The findings show that firm performance has a significant positive impact on CEO compensation in all profitability measures except Tobin's Q. Further financial constraints have a significant negative impact on CEO compensation. The interactive variables of FC with all profitability measures have a significant negative impact on CEO compensation.

This study examines the relationship between firm performance and CEO compensation. Furthermore, the current study expanded the analysis by incorporating the role of financial constraints in the pay–performance relationship, which has not previously been tested, particularly in the context of an emerging market.

This chapter provides further evidence on the role of uncertainty and job complexity in pay-for-performance and autonomy decisions. It proposes an encompassing econometric approach in order to explain the differences in previous outcomes that may be due to differing methodological approaches. The main stylized fact is that autonomy and pay-for-performance are positively associated. Additionally, autonomy is positively related to job complexity and uncertainty suggesting that the relationship between these latter variables and pay-for-performance could be through autonomy. After controlling for autonomy, the positive relationship between pay-for-performance and job complexity disappears, while that between pay-for-performance and uncertainty becomes more negative.

This paper contains a commentary on the paper by Aguinis, Martin, Gomez-Mejia, O’Boyle and Joo published in this same issue. This paper aims to encourage the readers to examine this novel insight in future research but sadly, to disregard the results of this particular investigation.

Google Scholar tells us that, over a quarter of a million studies examine the relationship between CEO compensation and firm performance. Aguinis et al. (2018) take much of that work to task. Observing that the distribution of CEO compensation is skewed, they question any work that assumes a normal distribution. Correcting the flaw, Aguinis et al. (2018) conduct their own investigation of this important relationship. Contrary to previous work, they find no consistent empirical relationship between pay and performance. The authors review and discuss their work with a clear eye on its implications for improving our understanding of these relationships.

The authors cannot accept the results of the Aguinis et al. (2018) investigation as it stands. Saying why, they close their commentary with some ideas that should help one understand whether accounting for a skewed CEO pay distribution really does revolutionize one’s understanding of corporate governance.

The statistical insight provided by Aguinis et al. (2018) yields provocative, if not profound, practical implications. While the authors’ review is critical, they aim to foster continued inquiry, not shut it down.

El objetivo del presente comentario del articulo de Aguinis, Martin, Gomez-Mejia, O’Boyle and Joo (publicado en este mismo número) es el de motivar a sus lectores a examinar la nueva intuición que proporciona en el futuro pero, tristemente, desestimar los resultados de este trabajo en concreto.

Diseño/metodología/aproximación – Google Scholar indica que hay más de un cuarto de millón de estudios que analizan la relación entre la retribución del CEO y los resultados empresariales. Aguinis et al., (2018) analizan gran parte de este trabajo. Tras observar que la distribución de la retribución del CEO es asimétrica, cuestionan cualquier trabajo que asuma una distribución normal. Corriendo este aspectos Aguinis et al. (2018) llevan a cabo su propio análisis en este importante tema. Contrariamente a otros trabajos previos estos autores no encuentran una relación consistente entre la retribución y los resultados. Revisamos y discutimos su trabajo con un ojo en las implicaciones para la comprensión de esta relación.

Resultados – No podemos aceptar los resultados de Aguinis et al. (2018) en su forma actual. Señalando porqué, cerramos nuestro comentario con algunas ideas que deben ayudarnos a entender si tomando en cuenta la asimetría de la distribución de la retribución del CEO realmente es una revolución para nuestra comprensión del gobierno corporativo de las empresas.

Implicaciones – La evidencia aportada por Aguinis et al. (2018) genera provocadoras, si no profundas, implicaciones prácticas. Si bien nuestro comentario es crítico, es nuestro deseo abrir – y no cerrar – el debate para considerar este importante tema.

Originalidad/valor – El comentario revisa de manera crítica las conclusiones del artículo publicado por Aguinis y colegas en este mismo número.

O objetivo do presente comentário do artigo de Aguinis, Martin, Gomez-Mejia, O’Boyle e Joo (publicado neste mesmo número) é motivar aos seus leitores a examinar a nova intuição que proporciona no futuro mas, infelizmente, desestimar os resultados deste trabalho em concreto.

Metodologia – O Google Scholar diz-nos que mais de duzentos e cinquenta mil estudos examinam a relação entre compensação do CEO e performance da empresa. Aguinis et al. (2018) examinam uma boa parte desses estudos. Observando que a distribuição da compensação do CEO é enviesada, eles questionam os trabalhos que assumem uma distribuição normal. Corrigindo a falha, Aguinis et al. (2018) conduzem a sua própria investigação desta relação. Contrariamente a trabalho anterior, eles não encontram uma relação empírica consistente entre pagamento e performance. Revemos e discutimos o seu trabalho com enfoque especial nas suas implicações para a compreensão destas relações.

Resultados – Não podemos aceitar os resultados da investigação de Aguinis et al. (2018) tal como está. Dizendo porquê, terminamos o nosso comentário com algumas ideias que nos ajudam a perceber se dar conta duma distribuição enviesada de compensação do CEO realmente revoluciona a nossa compreensão da governança corporativa.

Implicações – A evidência estatística de Aguinis et al. (2018) levanta implicações práticas provocadoras, se não mesmo profundas. Sendo a nossa revisão crítica, pretendemos abrir – e não fechar – a continuação da consideração destes assuntos.

Originalidade/valor – O comentário faz uma revisão crítica das conclusões do artigo de Aguinis e colegas, neste número.

The purpose of this paper is to study bank executive compensation and securitization, two important strategic developments in finance that are central to the debate on the cause of the crisis.

We study the relationship between securitization and executive pay in a sample of US banks from 2001 to 2010, using a series of multivariate regression models to test our hypotheses.

Bank Chief Executive Officer (CEO) pay exhibits a positive pay-for-performance relationship. Since the crisis, this relationship is weakened. For banks that securitize, we find that prior to the crisis, higher securitization activity led to higher CEO compensation levels. While we do not find that securitization is related to bank CEO pay gap (the difference between CEO and the next-highest paid bank executive), we do see that bank ratings are a factor in pay gap and compensation level.

Bank regulatory ratings influence the relationship between compensation and securitization. Also, the relationship differs pre- and post-crisis.

Our study is unique for several reasons. First, we look at the relationship between compensation and securitization over a time period that includes the recent financial crisis. Second, we include an analysis of pay gap. Third, we include bank regulatory ratings, which are proprietary and therefore not available for use in many banking studies.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the economic determinants of the compensation for chief executive officers (CEOs) between the pre- and post-financial crisis periods. To conduct the comparative analysis, the authors consider five years before and five years after the financial crisis of 2008. The authors use the data from the US financial service institutions and run separate regressions for the pre- and post-crisis periods to check if there is any significant difference in the economic determinants of executive compensation before and after the financial crisis. The authors find that total compensation and its incentive components decreased significantly in the post-crisis period. In the pre-crisis period, total compensation was determined by stock performance, accounting profit, growth, and leverage, whereas in the post-crisis period stock returns and leverage are the major factors influencing total compensation. The authors also find that firms’ leverage negatively influences the sensitivity of the pay for performance, but the influence of leverage on pay for performance is weaker in the post-crisis period. Our research is significant in the context of the US economy, the regulatory reforms of financial institutions, and the perspectives of the executive compensations. This is the first study that compares the relationship between compensation and firm performance over the pre- and post-crisis periods. It is an explicit attempt to develop a theoretical understanding of the compensation/performance relationship for the financial industry, which is blamed for the financial crisis and is affected by the Dodd–Frank regulation after the crisis.