The configurational effects of board monitoring and the institutional environment on CEO compensation: a country-level fuzzy-set analysis

This study examines the causal complexity of how the effectiveness of board monitoring influences CEO compensation around the world. Previous research drawing from the managerial power theory and ‘increased career risks’ perspective offer alternative arguments for how low and high levels of effective monitoring by boards of directors influence CEO compensation. Adopting a configurational approach using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, we explore the idea that there are multiple causal paths leading to high levels of CEO compensation, such that theoretical logic from both theories may be relevant contingent upon the institutional environment in which the relationship is embedded. Our findings in a sample of 38 countries suggest that high CEO compensation is an outcome of both the presence and absence of effective board monitoring depending upon how it combines with minority investor protections and the cultural dimensions of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and individualism, as well as the overall stock market value. Specifically, in countries with high levels of effective board monitoring, high CEO compensation will be more likely when the country’s culture is high in uncertainty avoidance, low in power distance and when there are strong protections for minority investors. Whereas in countries with low levels of effective board monitoring, high CEO compensation will be more likely when power distance is high and uncertainty avoidance is low and when there are weak protections for minority investors. Our country-level study highlights the theoretical strengths of employing a configurational approach to explore the complex interrelationships of governance mechanisms and the contexts in which they manifest.     

The cost of CEO duality: Evidence from French leadership compensation

This paper aims to provide a detailed analysis of the relationship between board leadership structures and executive compensation. According to agency theory, the combined position of CEO and Chairperson of the Board (COB) entails greater compensation for the CEO in order to reduce conflicts of interest. In the literature, combined board structure is generally considered to generate additional costs for companies. However, the choice of two separate structures implies the payment of incentive compensation for the COB in addition to that defined for the CEO. This paper investigates the financial cost of duality when compensation packages are set for both leaders. Our results suggest that although combined board structure is associated with higher incentive compensation for the CEO, the overall compensation cost to the company is no higher when the chairperson's compensation is considered.     

董事激励与公司业绩--实验的证据

我们在实验框架下检验了董事会成员的激励对股东财富和CEO报酬的影响,以及该报酬与公司业绩之间的敏感度.文中提出了两种任命董事的方法,一种由CEO任命,另一种由最大的股东自动担任董事.由董事会决定CEO的报酬,而CEO负责企业的生产、投资和分红决策.投资者根据接收到的每个公司的分红、资本收益这些信息,通过买卖这些企业的股票来调整他们的资产组合. 我们发现,薪酬与业绩之间的敏感度随董事持股比例的增加而上升.此外,当大股东作为董事会成员时,经济体所产生的财富(股东财富是其中的一部分)更大;而当CEO选择董事时,结果是缺乏效率的.本文讨论了关于董事职能和相关代理成本这一研究结果,以及标准会计框架下,限制执行人员报酬和报表标准化要求.     

Company Performance,Corporate Governance,and CEO Compensation in Norway and Sweden

This paper examines the relationshipamong company performance, corporategovernance arrangements, and CEO compensationwithin the Scandinavian countries of Norway andSweden. Our sample consists of 224 tradedcompanies, 120 of which are from Norway and 104from Sweden. The empirical evidence fromboth Norway and Sweden reveals significantpositive relationships among board size andCEO compensation, foreign board membership andCEO compensation, and market capitalization andCEO compensation. A significant negativerelationship is found between CEO ownership andCEO compensation. In addition, no significantrelationship is found between companyperformance and CEO compensation or CEO tenureand CEO compensation, except in the case ofNorwegian firms when a change in market-to-bookperformance measure is used. Despite itslimited geographical scope, the study adds toour general understanding of internationalcorporate governance issues.     

New perspectives on the governance of executive compensation: an examination of the role and effect of compensation consultants

We develop a multi-theoretic approach, drawing on economic, institutional, managerial power and social comparison literatures to explain the role of the external compensation consultant in the top management pay setting institutional field. Taking advantage of recent disclosure requirements in the UK, we collect data on compensation consultant use in 232 large companies. We show that consultants are a prevalent part of the CEO pay setting scene, and document evidence of all advisor use. Our econometric results show that consultant use is associated with firm size and the equity pay mix. We also show that CEO pay is positively associated with peer firms that share consultants, with higher board and consultant interlocks, and some evidence that where firms supply other business services to the firm, CEO pay is greater.     

Does Board Ethnic Diversity Impact Board Monitoring Outcomes?

This study investigates whether board ethnic diversity is associated with stronger board monitoring outcomes. We explore a range of outcomes – CEO compensation, accounting misstatements, CEO turnover–performance sensitivity and acquisition performance – but find no evidence to support this. We also find no evidence that board ethnic diversity improves overall firm performance, even for those firms with higher agency problems. Our results are robust across different methodologies and have important practical implications, by informing the current public policy debate on board ethnic diversity.     

Countermove: how CEOs respond to post-acquisition compensation adjustments

Following poorly performing acquisitions, the board of directors often redesigns the CEO’s annual compensation package to include less risk-encouraging stock options and more risk-discouraging restricted stock. This study explores the emerging area of post-acquisition compensation management and proposes that CEOs can indirectly, but effectively, defend against compensation rebalancing. Specifically, we find that CEOs may counteract the effects of compensation rebalancing by delaying the exercise of existing stock option holdings. Fortunately, this insight also offers valuable implications including the ability of the board to limit the CEO’s defense by adjusting stock option exercise windows.     

CEO Duality,Agency Costs,and Internal Capital Allocation Efficiency

This study examines the impact of CEO duality on firms’ internal capital allocation efficiency. We observe that when the CEO is also chair of the board, diversified firms make inefficient investments, as they allocate more capital to business segments with relatively low growth opportunities over segments with high growth opportunities. The adverse impact of CEO duality on investment efficiency prevails only among firms that face high agency problems, as captured by high free cash flows, staggered board structure and low board independence. Depending on the severity of the agency problem, CEO duality is associated with a decrease in industry‐adjusted investment in high‐growth segments of 1% to 2.1% over the following year, relative to that in low‐growth segments. However, CEOs’ equity‐based compensation curbs the negative effect of CEO duality on internal capital allocation efficiency. Overall, the findings of this study offer strong support for the agency theory and postulate the internal capital allocation policy as an important channel through which CEO duality lowers firm value in diversified firms.     

Power and trust in board–CEO relationships

In this paper we develop and test a theoretical model that reduces relational risks to solve the puzzle of conflicting task requirements imposed on boards of directors in listed companies. Doing so unites two seemingly conflicting tasks—board control and service tasks—through examining relational risks between the board and the CEO. We also present two mechanisms that could reduce relational risks. One is board power over the CEO, and the other board trust in the CEO. Practitioners could apply these two mechanisms to achieve better performance of board control and service tasks simultaneously. We test hypotheses using 441 survey responses collected in 2005. The result shows a good fit between the model and survey data, indicating examining relational risks is a rewarding approach to understanding conflicting board task performance, and board control over the CEO and board trust in the CEO are two effective mechanisms to reduce relational risks.     

Do Compensation Consultants Drive Up CEO Pay? Evidence from UK Public Firms

Do compensation consultants drive up CEO pay for the benefit of managers, or do they design pay packages to benefit firm owners? Using a large sample of UK firms from the FTSE All‐Share Index over the 2003–2011 period, we show a positive correlation between the presence of compensation consultants and CEO pay. Importantly, isolating this effect is somewhat dependent on the endogenous selection of consultants and the statistical modelling strategy deployed. We find evidence that compensation consultants improve CEO compensation design when their expertise is of greater importance (e.g. during the post‐financial crisis period, or for firms that have particularly weak compensation policies). In addition, our findings show that compensation consultants increase CEO pay–performance sensitivity. The balance of evidence supports optimal contracting theory more than managerial power theory, but the authors caution the limits to this verification. We are careful to note that the more compelling evidence for the positive effect of pay consultants on CEOs is based on advanced methods (such as propensity score matching and difference‐in‐differences), and that more standard approaches (such as OLS and fixed effects) are unlikely to reveal the same level of causality of consultants on CEO pay.     

The influence of top management corporate networks on CEO succession

We analyze empirically how supervisory board members with multiple directorships affect the decision to hire an inside or outside CEO successor. While a growing number of both theoretical and empirical studies analyze the influence of corporate performance and size or the ownership structure on this decision, the role of multiple board memberships within the CEO recruitment process has been widely neglected so far. The present study is based on panel data of the largest German companies covering the period from 1996 to 2008. Applying competing risk estimations we find a weak and positive association between the number of external directorships of the supervisory board members and internal CEO replacements. Distinguishing between different groups of external board positions, we find that external executives on the supervisory board increase the likelihood of external CEO replacements. In line with empirical findings for the US we argue that external executives improve the assessment of potential CEO successors leading to more outside CEO replacements. In contrast, we find evidence that external supervisory board mandates of the supervisory board members cause more internal CEO replacements. This finding indicates a substitution of external expertise of the executives by multiple supervisory board mandates but could also reflect a reduction of the monitoring intensity of the supervisory board.     

Two heads are safer than one: Changes in CEO duality and venture failure

We study the dynamics of a major design choice in the governance of ventures: whether to distribute power at the top of the venture between a separate CEO and board chair. We propose that ventures are more likely to combine (separate) their CEO and chair positions when operational performance is poor (strong), demonstrating behavior in line with the threat rigidity thesis. Paradoxically, however, ventures would most benefit from a separate CEO and board chair when operational performance is poor. Empirical analysis of data from the Australian mining industry offers general support for our theory, with some interesting nuances. We discuss the implications of our findings for emerging conversations in the literatures on venture boards, boards of directors, and entrepreneurship.     

Board age and corporate financial fraud: An interactionist view

Unlike past studies which have focused on either executives or boards of directors, this study takes an interactionist view to investigate the determinants of corporate financial fraud. We propose that CEOs evaluate the opportunities for financial fraud according to both situational stimuli and their own personal characteristics. As older directors are often more experienced and have more to lose if they fail in their monitoring duties, we expect them to be more capable and to have stronger motivation for monitoring CEOs closely. As such, we propose that a CEO is less likely to engage in corporate financial fraud when the average age of the board of directors increases (i.e., board age). However, when the CEO is older than the board, the CEO may attach less importance to board age when deciding whether to commit fraud. Therefore, we further propose that the CEO–board directional age difference can weaken the effect of board age. Our empirical analyses provide strong support for these hypotheses. Our study contributes to the literature on corporate governance by highlighting the often neglected roles of board age and CEO–board directional age difference in deterring corporate financial fraud.     

Board size and firm value: evidence from Australia

We study the effect of board size on firm value in Australia. Using a large sample of Australian firms over the period 2001–2011, we find strong evidence of a negative relationship. We show that firms with a large board are associated with CEO compensation that is sensitive to firm size, but not to firm performance. This incentive to accumulate assets is congruent with the fact that firms with a large board also exhibit lower operating performance and higher operating costs. Furthermore, we find that the effect of board size is stronger in small firms. This result might explain why earlier studies, which focused on large Australian firms, found board size to have little impact on firm value.     

Dual class shares,board of directors’ effectiveness and firm’s market value: an empirical study

This study aims to identify whether a relationship exists between the controlling shareholders’ voting power and outside directors’ effectiveness in maximizing firms’ financial performance. We analyze a panel data with 3057 observations for the 2000–2012 period using a random effects model, logit and probit regressions, and the two-stage model of Heckman in the Brazilian stock market. Our findings show that firms whose controlling shareholders use dual class shares to leverage their voting power have less independence from the board and worse financial performance and market value. Further, the percentage of outside directors tends to be ineffective in increasing the firm’s value, and in changing the firm’s chief executive officer (CEO) when (1) the controlling shareholder’s voting power is leveraged, or (2) when the CEO assumes a position on the board of directors simultaneously. We interpreted that these results are in line with the arguments in favor of the existence of a new agency cost, which is related to the undue obedience of board members to authority, such as the largest controlling shareholder or the CEO in Brazilian listed firms.     

CEO duality and firm performance: The moderating roles of other executives and blockholding outside directors

This study examines how the effect of CEO duality on firm performance is affected by two internal governance forces – namely other executives in the top management team and blockholding outside directors. Results based on a longitudinal dataset from the U.S. computer industry were consistent with my hypotheses. Specifically, I found that the effect of CEO duality was negative when the CEO had dominant power relative to other executives and when the board had a blockholding outside director, but was nonsignificant otherwise. This study enriches our understanding of the effect of CEO duality, and helps reinforce the call for the nonduality structure as the default choice and put the burden of proof on those who wish to justify otherwise on special grounds.     

CEO successor compensation: outside versus inside successions

We propose that outside CEO candidates will have greater bargaining power than insiders. As a result, outside CEO successors will likely receive greater total compensation than inside CEO successors. Outside successors, meantime, pose more risk to the hiring firm than inside successors due to higher information asymmetry. As a result, outside successor compensation packages are tilted towards more performance-related pay-at-risk, while inside successor packages have a higher percentage in salary. In addition, outside successors may want to utilize the structure of their compensation at their previous firm in their new contracts. Using a sample of 99 firms with outside successors who were not CEO in their prior firms, matched by industry and size to firms that hired inside candidates, we find evidence supporting these hypotheses.     

Board size and corporate performance: the missing role of board leadership structure

Different arguments have been introduced in the literature both for and against large and small board sizes. In this context, empirical evidence regarding the impact of board size on corporate performance is less conclusive, which means that further study is needed. Contrary to previous work, it is hypothesized in this study that the relationship between board size and corporate performance is more likely to be confounded by board leadership structure. Econometric analysis provided strong evidence for the applicability of this hypothesis and demonstrated that board size positively affects corporate performance in the presence of CEO non-duality (board leadership structure that is split between the roles of the CEO and the roles of the chairman). Furthermore, board size is shown to have a negative influence on corporate performance in the presence of CEO duality (board leadership structure that assigns the roles of both CEO and chairman to the same person). This conclusion is robust to the use of different measures of corporate performance, control variables and econometric models. Thus, these findings cast doubt on most of the existing evidence that posits that either large or small board size is always the best alternative to be followed in all organizations.     

How does interpersonal justice affect outside directors’ governance behavior? A cross-cultural comparison

We examine the impact of interpersonal justice among outside directors on the board and between a director and the CEO regarding the director’s monitoring and resource provision behaviors in different cultural contexts. We argue that directors from individualistic countries are more influenced by CEO interpersonal justice while directors from collectivistic countries are more affected by the board interpersonal justice. Our main effect results indicate that interpersonal justice with board members is positively related to both monitoring and resource provision by a director, while CEO interpersonal justice is related only to resource provision. Our results also show different effects on the director’s behaviors between three countries, i.e., Canada, Singapore, and Spain. We found that CEO interpersonal justice is positively associated with resource provision in Canada, while board interpersonal justice is positively related to both monitoring and resource provision in Singapore and Spain. These results suggest that directors discharge their board duties differently by how they are treated by other directors and the CEO and that their governance behaviors vary by culture. This study contributes to the literature on comparative corporate governance by showing the differences in directors’ behaviors in different cultural contexts.     

Determinants of CEO Age at Succession

Based on Brickley’s (2003) call for research on the CEO/turnover relation, we examine determinants of CEO age at succession. Utilizing the similarity–attraction paradigm, we propose that board members will select new CEOs that are similar to their own age. We find a strong positive relation between successor CEO age and average board member age. Thus, the similarity–attraction paradigm seems to play a role in board of director selection of CEO successors. However, we also propose that poor prior performance may mitigate similarity–attraction. Our results are also consistent with this hypothesis because we find no relation between successor CEO and board age following poor prior performance. Finally, the hiring of an age-similar CEO does not reduce the companies’ subsequent financial performance and may even have a slightly positive impact on it.