Abstract
We compare top management compensation among prospector, defender, and analyzer strategic types, and the effects of differences in managers' employment risks, firm performance, and firm size. Prospectors performed better and they paid their top management group more than did analyzers. They were also bigger, their managers faced more employment risks, and they paid their CEOs more than did defenders or analyzers. Significant differences were found among the three strategic types in managers' employment risks, firm performance, and size. On average, the strategic types whose managers faced greater employment risks also compensated their top management group more, providing evidence of a positive relationship between risk and return at the level of strategic types. Confirming previous findings, firm size constituted the greatest influence on top management compensation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
