Research in incentives has focused on performance measures and pay-performance sensitivities but has largely ignored the “performance standard”, which generates important incentives whenever plan participants can influence the standard-setting process. “Internally determined” standards are directly affected by management actions in the current or prior year, while “externally determined” standards are less easily affected. I show that companies choose external standards when prior performance is a noisy estimate of contemporaneous performance. In addition, companies using budget based and other internally determined performance standards have less-variable bonus payouts, and are more likely to smooth earnings, than companies using externally determined standards.

Although exercise prices for executive stock options can be set either below or above the grant-date market price, in practice virtually all options are granted at the money. We offer an economic rationale for this apparent puzzle, by showing that pay-to-performance incentives for risk-averse undiversified executives are typically maximized by setting exercise prices at (or near) the grant-date market price. We provide an operationally useful alternative to Black-Scholes (1973) for the purpose of both valuing executive stock options and measuring the incentives created by options. Our framework has implications not only for exercise-price policies, but also for indexed options, option repricings, exchanges of cash for stock-based compensation, and the design of bonus plans.