By reviewing the theory underlying the design and interdependency of management control systems, I highlight the important role firm dynamics plays in our understanding of these control systems. I provide both theoretical and empirical extensions encouraging authors to explore more longitudinal studies to better understand the path dependency of control system design, how control system elements vary over time within a firm, and how the interdependent nature of individual control elements might vary.

In response to general calls for increased transparency in society, pay transparency policies are growing in importance. Given that pay transparency unavoidably gives employees the opportunity to make comparisons between themselves and others, in this study we address the question of how these comparisons impact the incentive effects of performance contingent pay, and consequently their performance outcomes. Specifically, we empirically examine whether horizontal pay dispersion alters the effectiveness of performance-based pay contracts, which firms typically use to incentivize effort. Exploiting our unique access to a large healthcare provider, we document the moderating role of horizontal pay dispersion on the effectiveness of individual monetary incentives at generating increased individual performance. To provide a more nuanced understanding of the moderating effect of pay dispersion, we further examine the boundary conditions of the proposed interaction. In particular, we examine the differential effect of overall pay dispersion on employees that rank high versus low in the pay distribution and disaggregate overall pay dispersion into performance-related versus performance-unrelated pay dispersion. Our findings consistently show a positive moderating effect of pay dispersion when employees are more likely to consider the observed pay dispersion as legitimate, and a negative moderation effect when this is less likely the case. Our study strengthens the understanding of how individual level incentives function in the context of a multi-person firm setting. Our results document that individual incentives are effective, but also suggest that pay dispersion can have a significant influence on the incentive-performance relation. These findings provide some evidence that individuals are concerned not only with their own payout, but also with that of others, and that this concern has a significant impact on individual’s effort provision, and consequently performance.

Academic and anecdotal evidence indicates that incentive systems often provide short‐term payouts without regard for long‐term consequences. New detailed disclosures mandated by FIN No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes, enable us to use a tax setting to investigate whether boards adjust performance‐based pay for uncertainty. We find managers’ bonus payouts are positively associated with tax performance; however, bonus payouts are lower when measures of ex ante tax uncertainty are higher. Our results are robust to tests of alternative explanations including financial reporting aggressiveness, overall firm risk, and other forms of compensation. Further, we document that the relation between bonus compensation and tax performance has changed in the post‐ FIN No. 48 period. Specifically, we identify a significant association between bonus payout and GAAP ETR only in the pre‐ FIN No. 48 period and a significant association between bonus payout and cash ETR only in the post‐ FIN No. 48 period, suggesting that the relation between compensation and tax avoidance should be examined carefully with particular attention to the post‐ FIN No. 48 period.

This paper investigates the relation between executive compensation and corporate tax policies, with a focus on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). Using a pay-performance sensitivity framework, we analyze the differing compensation rewards associated with domestic and foreign pre-tax incomes. Our findings reveal that, before the TCJA, executives received significantly higher rewards for foreign income, encouraging them to shift income abroad. The TCJA reduced this disparity, bringing rewards for domestic and foreign income into closer alignment. A cross-sectional analysis shows that firms assessing CEO performance based on after-tax income exhibit greater sensitivity to changes in tax policy, establishing the presence of a tax mechanism. Additional tests eliminate alternative nontax explanations related to protectionist trade policies and changes in foreign market growth opportunities. These results highlight the significant impact of executive incentives on corporate tax behavior and the effectiveness of tax policy reforms.

We investigate the extent to which market participants use compensation payouts released in the DEF 14A proxy statement (DEF14A) to assess future firm performance by examining sell‐side analysts' earnings forecasts. Consistent with prior work, we confirm that CEO compensation unexplained by current observable economic factors is positively associated with future firm performance. We find that both the likelihood that analysts revise their forecasts following release of the DEF14A and the magnitude and direction of analysts' forecast revisions are positively associated with unexplained CEO compensation. These associations are stronger after the SEC required additional compensation‐related disclosures in late 2006 but lower if the firm has weak corporate governance or more precise other information. Analysts' reactions are not complete, however. Analysts' forecast errors measured months after the DEF14A release are associated with past unexplained compensation, especially in the pre‐2006 period and for analysts who do not revise at the DEF14A release. Taken together, our results suggest that compensation payouts released in the DEF14A contain useful forward‐looking information that is recognized by at least some sophisticated market participants and that the increased disclosure regulations assisted market participants in incorporating this information.