This study investigates whether firms revise executive bonus compensation targets based on past performance. Studies in this area suffer from a lack of detailed information related to executive performance targets. Using mandatory disclosures of executive compensation information under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's new disclosure rules, this study provides the first large‐sample evidence of bonus target ratcheting. There are three major findings: (i) executive bonus targets ratchet and they ratchet asymmetrically; (ii) the degree of target ratcheting and ratcheting asymmetry vary with executive equity incentives and investment opportunities; and (iii) performance relative to bonus target is serially correlated.

Using 1997–1999 annual performance evaluation data of 214 postal stores in Korea, we find that financial performance improves following the implementation of an incentive plan that includes relative performance measures, and that under this incentive plan, the degree of common uncertainty is positively associated with store profitability. We also find evidence that the incentive effect of the plan is mitigated in stores at which the employees' perceived unfairness is likely to be high. Finally, we find that the net benefits of introducing the incentive plan may be conditional on the degree of common uncertainty, which appears to be inversely related to the perceived unfairness attributable to the introduction of the contract with relative performance measures.

This study examines the association between firm performance and promotion incentives (i.e., the product of vertical pay disparity and promotion probability) in multilayer corporate tournaments using a unique data set of Korean public firms. We dissect the corporate tournament into layers and separately examine their association with firm performance while also accounting for the role of promotion probability. We find that (1) upper‐layer, rather than lower‐layer, tournaments are the main drivers of the positive association between vertical pay disparity and firm performance and (2) this association becomes stronger with higher promotion probability, consistent with tournament theory, but only in the upper layer. These results are more pronounced in settings where tournament incentives are plausibly more important, such as those characterized by high labor productivity and high average tenure. Our study draws a comprehensive picture of the corporate tournaments that simultaneously accounts for various factors that previous studies have examined only in isolation.

This study examines the explicit use of relative performance evaluation (RPE) in executive compensation contracts and the selection of RPE peers. Using S&P 1500 firms’ first proxy disclosures under the SEC’s 2006 executive compensation disclosure rules, we find that about 25 percent of our sample firms explicitly use RPE in setting executive compensation. We demonstrate that a lack of knowledge of both actual peer-group composition and the link between RPE-based performance targets and future peer performance significantly hinder the traditional implicit test from detecting RPE use. We also find that firms consider both costs and benefits of RPE as an incentive mechanism when deciding to use RPE. Finally, both efficient contracting and rent extraction considerations influence RPE peer selection, with the relative importance of these competing considerations depending on RPE firms’ performance.

In a setting in which corporate headquarters dictates total sales targets, we study how supervisors allocate sales targets to individual stores. Specifically, we analyze whether supervisors strategically use discretion in the target-setting process to address compensation contracting issues. We first examine whether supervisors use discretion to manage compensation risk. The results are consistent with the agency-theoretic prediction that supervisors provide easier targets to stores facing higher levels of store-specific risk. Next, we examine whether discretion is used to mitigate fairness concerns. The results suggest that, consistent with behavioral arguments, supervisors use discretion to deal with fairness issues, even if the area of the supervisor’s discretion is not the source of the fairness concerns. Finally, we analyze whether supervisors use discretion in the target-setting process to reduce their potential confrontation costs. Consistent with research in psychology, we find that supervisors provide easier targets to store managers with relatively higher hierarchical status.

This paper empirically examines the interactive effect of competition intensity and competition type on the use of customer satisfaction measures in executives' annual bonus contracts. Specifically, we predict a stronger association between competition intensity in an industry and the use of customer satisfaction measures in executives' annual bonus contracts when the competition is non-price-based than when the competition is price-based. Using hand-collected data from Standard & Poor's (S&P) 1500 firms' disclosures of the use of customer satisfaction measures in executive bonus contracts in 2006 and 2010 proxy statements, we find results consistent with our prediction. Our results are robust to alternative measures of competition type and competition intensity. We also find similar results when we use the weight on customer satisfaction measures in executive bonus contracts as the dependent variable. Our study extends the literature on the effect of competition on the design of managerial incentives by distinguishing between competition intensity and competition type, and providing the first large-sample empirical evidence on the joint effect of these two dimensions of competition on the incentive use of an important nonfinancial performance measure. Data Availability: Data used in this study are obtained from publicly available sources.