Skip to content

2 June, 2023

Subscribe Advertise About Us
  • My Account
  • Register
  • Log In
  • Log Out

Board Agenda

  • Governance
  • Strategy
  • Risk
  • Ethics
  • News
    • Categories

      • View All
      • Board Moves
    • Succession planning

      News round-up: this week in governance

      UK 'less optimistic' on ESG than European boards; holding stock; ethics codes; governance in Japan;...

    • C-suite barometer Leaders are positive about growth despite economic uncertainty

      Sustainability and technology are strategic priorities for boards in 2023, Mazars’ annual barometer of the...

    • EU CSDDD Pressure builds on EU to amend due diligence rules

      More companies have added their voices to the call to make the EU Corporate Sustainability...

  • Insight
    • Categories

      • View all
      • Governance
      • Strategy
      • Risk
      • Ethics
      • Board Expertise
      • finance
      • Technology
    • Climate finance

      How climate change alters the financial landscape

      To achieve sustainability, companies and boards will need to look not only to their operations,...

    • generative AI

      Five AI issues to consider right now

      We may not know what AI will mean for us all in the long term,...

    • sexual misconduct

      How to prevent sexual misconduct in your organisation

      Revelations about the CBI may be shocking, but there is no place for complacency and...

  • Comment
      • View all
    • hybrid AGM

      Hybrid AGMs maximise shareholder participation

      Avoid virtual-only annual general meetings: although pragmatic in an emergency, they water down shareholders’ rights.

    • ESG break up ESG: Should E and S break up with G?

      In the world of investing, maturity has revealed significant practical shortcomings in combining environmental, social...

    • controlling shareholders The politics and geopolitics of controlling shareholders

      Shareholders with a controlling interest influence not only financial matters but can also wield great...

  • Interviews
      • View All Interviews
      • Podcasts
      • Webinars
    • information resilience IT transformation sees boards moving to ‘continuous’ management

      Data analytics available on demand requires a resilient—and selective—approach to sharing information, a webinar panel...

    • life sciences podcast Reform of NHS levy ‘harms UK competitiveness’

      Boards in the pharmaceutical and life sciences sector face increasingly difficult decisions, according to a...

    • Board priorities 2023 Board priorities 2023: tact, trust and transparency

      We asked key figures what would help boards this year. The answers ranged from 'smarter...

  • Careers
      • View all
      • Selection
      • Board Moves
    • board survey 2023 Board appointments fell sharply in 2022

      Companies appear to be sticking with experienced leaders—to the detriment of progress—suggests FTSE 350 boardroom...

    • diversity statistics Diversity statistics challenged by new scorecard

      Companies can ‘hit the target, but miss the point’, say academics researching a more ‘holistic’...

    • CEO turnover CEO turnover rises steeply

      The researchers say political changes and business difficulties may have accelerated turnover, which has risen...

  • Resource Centre
      • White Paper Downloads
      • Book Reviews
      • Corporate & Advisory Services
    • Mazars c-suite 2023

      Mazars C-suite barometer 2023

      The Mazars C-suite barometer is based on responses from more than 800 C-suite executives from...

    • CFO Career Survey Report

      Our survey, in December 2022, of almost 200 CFOs across the public, private and non-profit...

    • The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

      The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

      The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement highlights the need for greater engagement between companies and...

  • Events
  • Search by topic
    • Governance
    • Strategy
    • Risk
    • Ethics
    • Regulation
    • ESG
    • Investor Relations
    • Selection
    • Board Expertise
    • finance
    • Technology

What really determines CEO compensation?

by Alex Edmans

A CEO pay survey highlights the underlying differences of opinion that may cause disagreements on remuneration—and also areas of agreement.

Speech bubble with pound sign

Image: Stockwars/Shutterstock.com

What determines CEO pay? Researchers typically answer this question by building models and testing their predictions with data. We’ve learned a substantial amount from this research—some of which has won Nobel prizes.

But these methods have limitations. Just like a flight or city simulator, a model needs to make assumptions—but how close are they to the real world? And the problem with data is that many key variables, such as a CEO’s intrinsic motivation, are hard to measure.

In a new paper, CEO Compensation: Evidence from the Field, we take a different approach—we survey over 200 UK directors and over 150 investors on how they design pay. The problem with any survey, particularly on a controversial topic like CEO pay, is that responses may not be truthful. So we used established academic techniques and extensive beta-testing to minimise this risk.

I teamed up with Tom Gosling, an LBS executive fellow and former head of PwC’s executive pay practice, and Dirk Jenter, a finance professor at LSE, to ensure the survey was both academically rigorous and practically relevant.

Intrinsic motivation

We first asked about respondents’ goals when setting CEO pay. The responses showed that 65% of directors view attracting the right CEO as most important, while 34% prioritise designing a structure that motivates the CEO. For investors, these figures are 44% and 51%.

This reflects a theme that recurs throughout our CEO pay survey: directors view the CEO labour market as much tighter than investors; shareholders wish to offer the “ideal” contract but directors are concerned it would drive some CEOs away. Only 1% of directors and 5% of investors prioritise keeping the level of pay down. CEO pay is a small percentage of firm value, while hiring a subpar CEO or providing suboptimal incentives has potentially large effects.

A total of 67% of directors admit that they would sacrifice shareholder value to avoid controversy on CEO pay

A total of 67% of directors admit that they would sacrifice shareholder value to avoid controversy on CEO pay. Surprisingly, the main source of controversy is investors (not employees or the public), even though investor support should be automatic if boards are setting pay optimally.

Instead, directors believe that shareholder guidelines, paradoxically, harm shareholder value. As one wrote, “shareholders appoint RemCos and then often seek to micromanage their duties.” A total of 77% report that investor pressure has forced them to offer less pay than they thought was optimal.

This disagreement could arise either because directors underestimate their ability to lower pay, or investors overestimate it. To disentangle these interpretations, we ask the 77% of directors who were forced to offer lower pay about the consequences. While 7% report that the CEO left, and 13% that they hired a less expensive CEO, 41% admit that there were no adverse effects—so they underestimated their ability to lower pay. However, 42% reported that the CEO was less motivated.

This result is interesting, because we typically view incentives as arising from how pay varies with performance rather than the level of pay. These results are instead consistent with a “fairness” model. CEOs are driven by intrinsic motivation, rather than because they need money to finance consumption. But if pay falls below what the CEO views as fair, her intrinsic motivation may be eroded.

Financial incentives

The importance of fairness comes up in our second set of questions, on the role of financial incentives in motivating CEOs. Both boards and shareholders believe they are relevant but secondary compared to intrinsic motivation.

However, financial incentives still matter, because they reinforce intrinsic motivation—in contrast to common claims that they crowd it out. CEOs believe it is fair to be rewarded for good performance; perceived unfairness would erode their intrinsic motivation. As one director stressed, “the retrospective acknowledgement of exceptional performance is important.”

Financial incentives still matter, because they reinforce intrinsic motivation—in contrast to common claims that they crowd it out

Our third set of results concerns the level of pay. They showed 77% of investors view CEO pay as too high, and only 32% thought there would be adverse consequences if pay were cut by one-third.

Many claimed that any CEO who leaves is probably not the right person to begin with. Directors strongly disagreed, suggesting such a cut would demotivate even an intrinsically motivated CEO. However, they were more open to market-wide pay cuts, suggesting that Covid might be an opportunity to reset the level of CEO pay. Boards and investors might wish to take this opportunity and ensure that pay does not bounce back after the pandemic is over.

Long term vs short term

While our survey identified many differences of opinion, it also highlighted more consensus on some aspects than otherwise thought. Many directors were opposed to making incentives more long term, arguing that investors are focused on short-term returns—but 77% of investors supported such a move.

Directors claimed that investor guidelines force them into more one-size-fits-all pay structures, but investors reported that they would like more tailoring. There is support from both investors and some directors for paying the CEO like a long-term owner, with restricted shares rather than bonuses and LTIPs.

Pay disputes often focus on the contract itself. Our survey highlights the underlying differences of opinion that may be the root cause of disagreements on pay packages—and also areas of agreement. We hope that our results will help boards and investors understand the “other side”, thus paving the way for more fruitful dialogues on executive pay.

Alex Edmans is professor of finance at London Business School and author of Grow the Pie: How Great Companies Deliver Both Purpose and Profit.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Mail

Related Posts

  • CEO Covid pay cuts merely ‘symbolic’
    July 19, 2022
    pandemic pay

    Top-level pay was boosted to pre-pandemic levels by incentives schemes in many cases, leaving investors ‘outraged’, researchers found.

  • High Pay Day reflects slight fall in FTSE 100 CEO pay
    January 7, 2022
    CEO putting pay in his pocket

    This year is the first time since 2011 that the median FTSE 100 CEO has had to work into a fourth day to make the average annual income.

  • Average FTSE 350 pay ratio 'almost doubles' in 2022
    May 23, 2022
    Pound coins in a stack

    Gap between FTSE 350 CEOs and average workers has risen from 34:1 to 63:1, according to early figures collated by the High Pay Centre.

  • CEO pay falls by 9%—but LGIM issues warning over engagement
    November 22, 2021
    Businessman looking in his wallet

    PwC report shows executive pay has fallen; but LGIM says investor feedback on remuneration is being ignored.

For thoughtful journalism, expert insights on corporate governance and an extensive library of reports, guides and tools to help boards and directors navigate the complexities of their roles, subscribe to Board Agenda

Alex Edmans, board directors, CEO pay, incentives, investors, research, shareholders

Search


Sign up to our Newsletter

Receive independent news, thoughtful journalism & expert insights about leadership, corporate governance & key boardroom issues straight to your inbox every week.

SIGN UP

Follow Us

 

 

 

 

Most Popular

  • Corporate governance code review boosts internal controls
  • ESG: Should E and S break up with G?
  • Five AI issues to consider right now
  • News round-up: this week in governance
  • Board appointments fell sharply in 2022

Featured Partner Profile

Diligent

Diligent

Diligent Corporation, which was founded in 2001, is headquartered in New York, NY with a European HQ in London. Diligent’s modern governance platform empowers leaders and teams at every level of the organisation to digitally transform and create ...

Featured Partner Resources

The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

The Engagement Appeal: The Path to Inclusive Investor Engagement

This is the inaugural white paper from The Engagem...

Stakeholder Engagement: A Roadmap for UK Plc Boards

This guide aims to provide directors and their col...

Digital Boards: How Technology Adoption is Driving Culture Change and Resiliency

Digital tools proved their worth to boards during ...
Leadership in AI report

Leadership in AI

This report from Board Agenda and Mazars, in assoc...
Director's Guide to Internal Investigations

A Director's Guide to Conducting Internal Investigations

An internal investigation must be handled meticulo...
 

ADVERTISE – FREE CORPORATE LISTING

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
ADD

ADVERTISE – PROMOTE YOUR REPORTS & WHITEPAPERS

FREE - Add your company profile to our Corporate & Advisory Directory.
Add Resource

Register Free

Register to receive free article views, selected resource downloads, and all the latest news alerts straight to your inbox. Register


  • Editors & Contributors
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Corporate & Advisory Services
  • Media Marketing Solutions
  • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Board Director Network
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookies
  • Sitemap
|