Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Onwards and upwards: why companies change their executive remuneration schemes, and why this leads to increases in pay

By Ruth Bender

Abstract

Much has been written about the phenomenon of ever-increasing executive pay in listed companies. This paper examines some of the underlying reasons for this continued increase in executive directors’ remuneration. It reports the results of 40 interviews with protagonists in the remuneration debate in FTSE 350 companies, exploring the types of change made and the reasons given for these changes. This issue has not specifically been addressed by previous studies. Reasons given for making changes included: increases due to being below market; changing performance-related schemes that did not pay out or paid less than the anticipated amount; changes in the company's culture or strategy; changes to senior personnel (executive and non-executive); compliance with good human resources practice; and a perceived need to comply with best practice in corporate governance. The results are analysed through two theoretical lenses. An agency theory explanation provides insight into the structure of executive remuneration contracts, and expectancy theory suggests why schemes might be changed to motivate the executives. The expectancy theory explanation tempers the agency theory explanation, showing why changes are made even though this may lead to moral haza

Topics: Executive remuneration, Agency theory, Performance-related pay
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Year: 2006
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/3956
Provided by: Cranfield CERES
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1980). Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. doi
  2. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. doi
  3. (2005). Annual Report On Board Structure And Directors’ Remuneration In
  4. (2003). Asymmetric Benchmarking in Compensation: Executives are Paid for (Good) Luck But Not Punished for doi
  5. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2 nd edition.
  6. (1987). Cognitive Approaches to Motivation: ValenceInstrumentality-Expectancy Theory. In
  7. (2004). Compare and Contrast: Perspectives on Board Committees. Corporate Governance: An International Review, doi
  8. (2003). Creating Accountability Within the Board: The Work of the Effective Non-Executive Director, doi
  9. (1995). Developing a Winning Partnership: How Companies and Institutional Investors are Working Together. Report of a joint City/Industry Working Group chaired by Paul Myners, London, DTI Innovation Unit.
  10. (1995). Directors’ Remuneration: Report of a Study Group Chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury. London: Gee and Co. doi
  11. (1991). Does Compensation Motivate Executives?, In
  12. Executive Compensation, A Strategic Guide for the 1990s.
  13. (1999). Executive Compensation. doi
  14. (2001). Has Pay for Performance Gone Awry? Views from a Corporate Governance Forum,
  15. (2003). How Executive Directors’ Remuneration is Determined doi
  16. (2002). Incentive Strategy II: Executive Compensation and Ownership Structure. Harvard Business School Case
  17. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data. doi
  18. (2005). Is U.S. doi
  19. (2004). Leading the Board Revolution. Corporate Governance: doi
  20. (2005). Letting Go of Norm: How Executive Compensation Can Do Better Than “Best Practices”. doi
  21. (2003). Long Term Incentive Plans, Executive Pay and UK Company Performance. doi
  22. (1998). Managing Performance-Related Pay Based on Evidence from the Financial Services Sector. doi
  23. (1992). On Studying Managerial Elites, doi
  24. (1968). One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review,
  25. (2005). Ordering Top Pay: Interpreting the Signals. doi
  26. (2002). Pay Comparability Across and Within UK Boards: An Empirical Analysis of the Cash Pay Awards to CEOs and Other Board Members. doi
  27. (1992). Performance Related Pay: Objectives and Application. doi
  28. (2004). Recent Compensation Research: An Eclectic Review. doi
  29. (2004). Remuneration: Where We’ve Been, How We Got to Here, What are the Problems, and How to Fix Them, doi
  30. (2004). Report on the Impact of the Directors’ Remuneration Report Regulations, London: Department of Trade and Industry.
  31. (2003). Review of the Role and Effectiveness of Non-Executive Directors, http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/non_exec_review/index.htm London: Department of Trade and Industry.
  32. (1987). Reward Systems in Organizations: The Strategic Design of Reward Systems, In:
  33. (2004). Some Design Guidelines for Equity-Based Pay. doi
  34. (1997). Strategic Orientations, Incentive Plan Adoptions, and Firm Performance: Evidence from Electric Utility Firms, doi
  35. Street Consultants (2004b) Paying for Performance: Executive LongTerm Incentives
  36. (2003). The Combined Code on Corporate Governance. London: Financial Reporting Council. doi
  37. (2004). The Determination of Directors’ Remuneration
  38. (2005). The Growth of Executive Pay. doi
  39. (2001). The Impact of The Board on Strategy: An Empirical Examination. doi
  40. (1932). The Modern Corporation and Public Property. doi
  41. (1991). The Organizational Impact of Executive Compensation. In
  42. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. doi
  43. (1997). Wearing Two Hats: The Conflicting Control and Management Roles of Non-Executive Directors. In
  44. (2004). Why Do Companies Use Performance-Related Pay for their Executive Directors?, Corporate Governance: An International Review, doi
  45. (1964). Work and Motivation.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.