{"title":"晋升激励、CEO任命与公司绩效","authors":"Maria Strydom, Michaela Rankin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2136249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Executive remuneration is often criticised as being excessive and not clearly linked to firm performance. This study further examines the link between pay and performance by examining the impact of promotion-based tournament incentives. Our hypotheses draw on tournament theory of labour economics which argues that the ‘gap’ between the remuneration of CEO and other senior executives creates a tournament-style competition for promotion amongst ambitious senior executives. The efforts of these highly motivated executives have a positive influence on overall firm performance. Whilst tournament theory is well studied in the US and UK (Conyon et al. 2001; Kale et al. 2009; Gong et al. 2011), Australian evidence is sparse. Our empirical analysis therefore seeks to better understand the determinants of tournament incentives, particularly surrounding the appointment of a new CEO. Further, we test whether firm performance is influenced by the magnitude of tournament incentives. Our results suggest that tournament incentives play a significant role in enhancing firm performance, but that this positive impact is somewhat reduced after a change in CEO. We also find that closer alignment of CEO pay (through equity compensation) is positively associated with firm performance. In regards to the determinants of tournament incentives we find that tournament incentives are lowest after a change in CEO. This study therefore contributes to the topical debate on executive compensation by providing evidence on the effectiveness of tournament incentives and their relationship to firm performance in the Australian environment. It is one of the first to examine whether tournament incentives play any role in the pay-for-performance relationship in Australia and findings are likely to be of interest to researchers, policy makers, corporations and their shareholders, given the increased current focus on executive compensation and the lack of clear alignment with firm performance.","PeriodicalId":142491,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance 1","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Promotion Incentives, CEO Appointments and Firm Performance\",\"authors\":\"Maria Strydom, Michaela Rankin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2136249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Executive remuneration is often criticised as being excessive and not clearly linked to firm performance. This study further examines the link between pay and performance by examining the impact of promotion-based tournament incentives. Our hypotheses draw on tournament theory of labour economics which argues that the ‘gap’ between the remuneration of CEO and other senior executives creates a tournament-style competition for promotion amongst ambitious senior executives. The efforts of these highly motivated executives have a positive influence on overall firm performance. Whilst tournament theory is well studied in the US and UK (Conyon et al. 2001; Kale et al. 2009; Gong et al. 2011), Australian evidence is sparse. Our empirical analysis therefore seeks to better understand the determinants of tournament incentives, particularly surrounding the appointment of a new CEO. Further, we test whether firm performance is influenced by the magnitude of tournament incentives. Our results suggest that tournament incentives play a significant role in enhancing firm performance, but that this positive impact is somewhat reduced after a change in CEO. We also find that closer alignment of CEO pay (through equity compensation) is positively associated with firm performance. In regards to the determinants of tournament incentives we find that tournament incentives are lowest after a change in CEO. This study therefore contributes to the topical debate on executive compensation by providing evidence on the effectiveness of tournament incentives and their relationship to firm performance in the Australian environment. It is one of the first to examine whether tournament incentives play any role in the pay-for-performance relationship in Australia and findings are likely to be of interest to researchers, policy makers, corporations and their shareholders, given the increased current focus on executive compensation and the lack of clear alignment with firm performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance 1\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Governance 1\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2136249\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance 1","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2136249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
高管薪酬经常被批评为过高,而且与公司业绩没有明确联系。本研究通过考察基于晋升的比赛激励的影响,进一步考察了薪酬与表现之间的联系。我们的假设借鉴了劳动经济学的竞赛理论,该理论认为,首席执行官和其他高管薪酬之间的“差距”在雄心勃勃的高管之间创造了一种锦标赛式的晋升竞争。这些高激励高管的努力对公司整体绩效有积极影响。虽然比赛理论在美国和英国得到了很好的研究(Conyon et al. 2001;Kale等人,2009;Gong et al. 2011),澳大利亚的证据很少。因此,我们的实证分析旨在更好地理解赛事激励的决定因素,特别是围绕新任首席执行官的任命。进一步,我们检验了公司绩效是否受到比赛激励程度的影响。我们的研究结果表明,比赛激励在提高公司绩效方面发挥了重要作用,但在CEO更换后,这种积极影响有所减弱。我们还发现,CEO薪酬(通过股权薪酬)与公司绩效呈正相关。关于比赛激励的决定因素,我们发现在CEO更换后比赛激励是最低的。因此,本研究通过提供证据证明比赛激励的有效性及其与澳大利亚环境下公司绩效的关系,有助于对高管薪酬的专题辩论。这是第一个研究比赛激励是否在澳大利亚的绩效薪酬关系中发挥作用的研究之一,研究结果可能会引起研究人员、政策制定者、公司及其股东的兴趣,因为目前人们越来越关注高管薪酬,而与公司业绩缺乏明确的一致性。
Promotion Incentives, CEO Appointments and Firm Performance
Executive remuneration is often criticised as being excessive and not clearly linked to firm performance. This study further examines the link between pay and performance by examining the impact of promotion-based tournament incentives. Our hypotheses draw on tournament theory of labour economics which argues that the ‘gap’ between the remuneration of CEO and other senior executives creates a tournament-style competition for promotion amongst ambitious senior executives. The efforts of these highly motivated executives have a positive influence on overall firm performance. Whilst tournament theory is well studied in the US and UK (Conyon et al. 2001; Kale et al. 2009; Gong et al. 2011), Australian evidence is sparse. Our empirical analysis therefore seeks to better understand the determinants of tournament incentives, particularly surrounding the appointment of a new CEO. Further, we test whether firm performance is influenced by the magnitude of tournament incentives. Our results suggest that tournament incentives play a significant role in enhancing firm performance, but that this positive impact is somewhat reduced after a change in CEO. We also find that closer alignment of CEO pay (through equity compensation) is positively associated with firm performance. In regards to the determinants of tournament incentives we find that tournament incentives are lowest after a change in CEO. This study therefore contributes to the topical debate on executive compensation by providing evidence on the effectiveness of tournament incentives and their relationship to firm performance in the Australian environment. It is one of the first to examine whether tournament incentives play any role in the pay-for-performance relationship in Australia and findings are likely to be of interest to researchers, policy makers, corporations and their shareholders, given the increased current focus on executive compensation and the lack of clear alignment with firm performance.