ABSTRACT We use survey data to examine firms' propensity to rely on financial measures in evaluating local business unit managers. We find that firms rely less on financial measures (and more on nonfinancial measures or subjective evaluations) in determining local managers' bonuses when those managers have greater influence over the design of internal accounting systems. At the same time, we find no significant association between the choice of performance measures and local managers' authority to make operating decisions. Instead, we find that local authority to make operating decisions is positively associated with local managers' influence over accounting systems. Taken together, our findings suggest that the design of internal accounting systems is an important dimension of overall organizational design. Our findings also cast doubt on the maintained assumption in prior work that major organizational design choices are complementary. Data Availability: Data used in this study cannot be made public due to confidentiality agreements with participating firms.

ABSTRACT We examine how firms design bonus plans of their CFOs. CFOs participate in decision making much like other executives, but they also have significant fiduciary responsibilities for reporting firms’ financial results. Responsibility for financial reporting raises the question of whether it is appropriate to pay CFOs annual bonuses contingent on self‐reported financial performance. In this paper, we provide a framework that characterizes CFO bonuses as a tradeoff between CFOs’ decision‐making responsibilities and their fiduciary duties over financial reporting. This framework yields a number of implications that we examine empirically using a proprietary survey of CFO compensation practices of public and private firms. Our main finding shows that from 2003 to 2007 public entities (relative to private entities) reduced the percentage of CFO bonuses contingent on financial performance. We interpret this result as evidence that firms mitigate misreporting practices in part by deemphasizing CFO incentive compensation.

ABSTRACT Although it is well understood that product market competition acts as a disciplining mechanism that reduces inefficiencies, our understanding of the implications for firms’ incentive design choices is still limited. We use a comprehensive new measure of competition and examine its effect on four major choices: CEO equity portfolio incentives, annual bonus plan incentives, choice of performance measures, and difficulty of financial performance targets. We find that competition reduces firm profits and total CEO compensation, including equity grants, which then also weakens portfolio incentives. Firms respond by adjusting annual bonus plans to restore incentives. Specifically, we find that competition goes together with stronger bonus plan incentives, more challenging annual performance targets, and a greater emphasis on long-term performance measures. Finally, we show that competition increases performance relative to annual bonus targets, which we interpret as evidence that CEOs work harder but get paid less in highly competitive environments. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text. JEL Classifications: M41; M52.

ABSTRACT A large stream of work on relative performance evaluation highlights the benefits of using information about peer performance in contracting. In contrast, the potential costs of discouraging cooperation among peers have received much less attention. The purpose of our study is to examine how the importance of cooperation affects the use of information about peer performance in target setting, also known as relative target setting. Specifically, we use data from an industrial services company where business unit managers need to share specialized equipment and staff with their peers to manage bottlenecks in their capacity. We construct several empirical proxies for the costs and benefits of information about peer performance and examine their effects on target setting. We find robust evidence that the sensitivity of target revisions to past peer performance is higher when peer group performance has greater capacity to filter out noise but lower when the importance of cooperation among peers is greater.

ABSTRACT Performance evaluations are typically based on a formula that specifies in advance all performance measures, their relative incentive weights, and targets to be met. However, beginning‐of‐year performance targets can become outdated due to unforeseen events that call for ex post adjustments to formula‐based incentive plans to restore incentives. We discuss three types of ex post incentive plan adjustments—end‐of‐year subjective performance evaluation, changes in next‐year relative incentive weights, and changes in next‐year performance targets—and empirically examine the extent to which they are used to discourage failure to meet a target by a wide margin. Specifically, we use 2004–2015 data on formula‐based bonus plans, subjective performance evaluations, and performance in Korean state‐owned enterprises. Consistent with our predictions, we find that very low performance relative to target is associated with (i) low subjective evaluations and (ii) an increase in next‐year incentive weights, conditions that render areas with poor performance more important in future evaluations. These findings are more pronounced on performance dimensions of high importance and less pronounced when very low performance is due to an adverse uncontrollable shock. Finally, we find evidence that ex post incentive plan adjustments are associated with future performance improvements. Combined, our findings suggest that ex post incentive plan adjustments can be used to strengthen incentives when performance targets get outdated.

Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Citation Raffi J. Indjejikian, Michal Matějka, Jason D. Schloetzer; Target Ratcheting and Incentives: Theory, Evidence, and New Opportunities. The Accounting Review 1 July 2014; 89 (4): 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50745 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe Accounting Review Search Advanced Search

ABSTRACT Using data on earnings targets in annual bonus plans, we construct and validate an empirical measure of beginning-of-year target difficulty and show that it is negatively associated with market uncertainty, retention concerns, and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) entrenchment. We then present several findings about the effect of target difficulty on performance and CEO compensation. First, greater target difficulty in annual bonus plans is associated with significantly lower CEO cash compensation as well as with decreases in other compensation awards. Second, moderately challenging targets (neither too easy nor too difficult to achieve) are associated with abnormal reversals in fourth-quarter performance, particularly reductions in fourth-quarter performance after abnormally favorable third-quarter performance. Third, greater target difficulty is associated with higher same-year abnormal earnings but at the same time with lower next-year earnings and stock returns. Combined, our findings suggest that target difficulty is an important incentive design choice that affects performance and executive compensation. Data Availability: Data used in this study are publicly available.

ABSTRACT When targets depend on past performance, incentives are adversely affected by the ratchet effect. We provide theory and evidence that incorporating past peer performance into targets can alleviate this adverse incentive effect. In particular, we present an analytical model that characterizes optimal target revisions as a function of past own and past peer performance. We then test the predictions of our model using data on 2008–2010 performance targets from 354 units of a governmental agency responsible for reintegration of the long‐term unemployed into the labor market. As a unique feature of our data, we have information on peer group quality, defined as the extent to which peer performance is informative about common shocks. Consistent with our model, we find that higher peer group quality (a) increases sensitivity of target revisions to past peer performance, (b) reduces sensitivity of target revisions to past own performance, and (c) reduces the ratchet effect as reflected in managerial incentives to withhold end‐of‐year effort.

ABSTRACT: We examine the extent to which firms use past performance as a basis for setting earnings targets in their bonus plans and assess the implications of such targets for managerial incentives. We find that high-profitability firms commonly decrease earnings targets when their managers fail to meet prior-year targets but rarely increase targets. Conversely, we find that low-profitability firms commonly increase earnings targets when their managers meet or exceed prior-year targets but rarely decrease targets. This target-revision process yields a serial correlation in target difficulty—targets remain relatively easy (or difficult) through time. We also find that firms are reluctant to revise earnings targets below zero, resulting in an unusually high frequency of zero earnings targets that are abnormally difficult to achieve. Collectively, our findings suggest that firms incorporate past performance information into targets, yet they do so only to a limited extent. This is consistent with theoretical arguments that highlight the benefits of contractual commitments. Data Availability: Data used in this study cannot be made public due to the confidentiality agreement with the sponsoring organization.