Abstract
We explore the determinants of compensation gaps between a firm’s CEO and its other top executives, and compare the ability of two competing optimal contracting theories, namely tournament theory and productivity theory, to explain the cross sectional variability in these gaps across firms. We find little evidence that firms design their executive compensation policies in a manner consistent with tournament theory. Our strongest evidence against tournament theory is from firms most likely to conduct tournament contests for selecting CEOs, which is prior to CEO turnovers, especially planned retirements, and in industries where firm-specific human capital is high. Empirically, we find that tournament predictions have weak explanatory power in these samples. In contrast, we find robust evidence that compensation is strongly linked to senior executives’ productivity measures, and that productivity differences among executives explain a large part of the cross sectional and time series variability in firm compensation gaps.
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.
