Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/140984
|
| Title: | 高階經理人薪酬差距與公司績效之關聯—論公司創新程度之影響
Top Management Compensation Gap and Firm Performance: The Impact of Innovation |
| Authors: | 詹詠晴
Chan, Yung-Chin |
| Contributors: | 李佳玲
Lee, Chia-Ling
詹詠晴
Chan, Yung-Chin |
| Keywords: | 高階經理人
薪酬差距
公司績效
創新
Top Manager
Compensation Gap
Corporate Performance
Innovation |
| Date: | 2022 |
| Issue Date: | 2022-08-01 17:07:11 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究探討高階經理人總薪酬差距與公司績效之關聯性，並進一步將薪酬區分為長期薪酬與短期薪酬，分析兩種薪酬差距與公司績效之關聯。接著運用競賽理論，研究創新程度是否能影響高階經理人薪酬差距與公司績效之關聯性。本研究利用北美公開公司2010-2019年之資料進行實證研究，並得出以下研究結果。
首先，高階經理人總薪酬差距和公司績效間存在顯著的正向關係。此外，長期薪酬差距同樣與公司績效間存在顯著的正向關係，但短期薪酬差距與公司績效間無顯著關聯。本研究同時發現，創新可以調節高階經理人總薪酬差距與長期薪酬差距與公司績效之關聯性。意即，若公司創新程度愈高，將會加強高階經理人總薪酬差距與長期薪酬差距對公司績效產生之正面影響。此外，在總薪酬維持在同樣水平的情況下，若總經理獲得的長期薪酬與短期薪酬皆高於其餘經理人，將會對公司績效產生負面影響；若長期薪酬低於總經理，但在短期薪酬上獲得補償，將會對高階經理人達到一定的激勵效果，提升公司績效。最後，除了與本期績效外，總薪酬差距和長期薪酬差距皆同樣與公司未來績效間存有一定程度正相關，表示若擴大總薪酬差距或長期薪酬差距，能夠提升公司未來績效。
This study investigates the correlation between the compensation gap of top managers and corporate performance. Furthermore, this study divides the top management compensation into long-term and short-term compensation to analyze the relations between the two types of compensation gaps and corporate performance. Using tournament theory, this study then examines whether the degree of innovation strengthens the effect of the top management compensation gap on firm performance. Collecting data from North America public firms from 2010 to 2019, the study makes conclusions as follow.
First, there is a significant positive relation between the top management compensation gap and company performance. In addition, the relation between the long-term pay gap and company performance is significant and positive, too. Meanwhile, there is no significant relationship between the short-term pay gap and company performance. Second, the study found that innovation moderates the correlation between the total and long-term compensation gaps of top manager and firm performance. That is, the higher the level of innovation is, the higher the positive impact of the total compensation gap and the long-term compensation gap on the performance of the firm. Third, on the condition that the total compensation remains at the same level, if a CEO receives higher long-term compensation and short-term compensation than other top managers, an incentive effect on top managers themselves can be seen, and the company`s performance can be thus observed improved; if top managers receive lower short-term compensation than a CEO but are compensated in their long-term pay, an incentive effect on top managers themselves can be seen, and the company`s performance can be thus observed improved. Finally, the study found that the total pay gap and the long-term pay gap also have a certain degree of positive relation with the company`s future performance, indicating that if the total pay gap or long-term pay gap is widened, the company`s future performance can be thus observed improved. |
| Reference: | 李佳玲，2006，不確定性、高階經理人報償差距與公司績效之關連性：競賽理論之驗證，會計評論，第42期（1月）：23-53。
周齊武與M. D. Shields，1994，科技改變、競爭、組織規模對管理會計組成問題之影響：以美國製造業公司為證，會計評論，第28期（9月）：103-128。
單驥與吳玉瑩，2004，台灣管理階層薪資結構：Tournament theory之實證研究 ，管理評論，第23卷第2期（4月）：45-68。
Aggarwal, R. K., and A. A. Samwick. 1999. Executive compensation, strategic competition, and relative performance evaluation: Theory and evidence. Journal of Finance 54 (6): 1999-2043.
Antoncic, B., and R. D. Hisrich. 2001. Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Venturing 16 (5): 495-527.
Antoncic, B., and R. D. Hisrich. 2003. Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 10 (1): 7-24.
Balkin, D. B., G. D. Markman, and Gomez-Mejia. L. R. 2000. Is CEO pay in high-technology firms related to innovation? Academy of Management Journal 43 (6): 1118-1129.
Banker, R. D., and S. M. Datar. 1989. Sensitivity, precision, and linear aggregation of signals for performance evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research 27 (1): 21-39.
Baysinger, B. D., Kosnick R. D., and Turk T. A. 1991. Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D strategy. Academy of Management Journal 34: 205-214.
Bloom, M. 1999. The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal 42 (1): 25-40.
Conyon, M. and D. Leech. 1994. Top pay, company performance and corporate governance. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 56: 229-247.
Cowherd, D., Levine D. 1992. Product quality and pay equity between lower level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive justice theory. Administration Science Quarterly 37 (2): 302-320.
Deutsch, M. 1985. Distributive Justice: A Social-Psychological Perspective. New Haven . Yale University Press.
Diamond, D. W., and R. E. Verrechia. 1982. Optimal managerial contracts and equilibrium security prices. Journal of Finance 37: 275-287.
Dolliger, M. J. 1998. Entrepreneurship: Strategies and Resources. 4th ed. Illinois. Sheridan Books.
Eriksson, T. 1999. Executive compensation and tournament theory: empirical tests on Danish data. Journal of Labor Economics 17: 262-280.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency-theory and institutional-theory explanations: the case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management Review 14: 57-74.
Finkelstein, S., and Boyd, B. K. 1998. How much does the CEO matter? The role of managerial discretion in the setting of CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal 41: 179-199.
Finkelstein, S., and D. C. Hambrick. 1988. Chief executive compensation: A synthesis and reconciliation. Strategic Management Journal 9 (6): 543-558.
Finkelstein, S., and D. C. Hambrick. 1989. Chief executive compensation: a study of the intersection of markets and political processes. Strategic Management Journal 10 (2): 121-134.
Finkelstein, S., and D. C. Hambrick. 1997. Top executives and their effects on organizations. Academy of Management Review 22 (3): 802-805.
Freedmanan, S. M., and J. R. Montanari. 1980. An integrative model of manage allocation. Academy of Management Review 5 (3): 381-390.
Garvey, G. and T. Milbourn. 2003. Incentive compensation when executives can hedge the market: evidence of relative performance evaluation in the cross section. Journal of Finance 58 (4): 1557-1582.
Gomez-mejia, L. R., H. Tosi, and T. Hinkin. 2017. Managerial control, performance, and executive compensation. Academy of Management Journal 30 (1): 51-70.
Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 33 (3): 114-135.
Graves, S. B., and N. S. Langowitz. 1993. Innovative productivity and returns to scale in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal 14: 593-605.
Gregg, P., S. Machin, and S. Szymanski. 1993. The disappearing relationship between directors’ pay and corporate performance. British Journal of Industrial Relations 31: 1-9.
Hart, S. L. 1992. An integrative framework for strategy-making processes. Academy of Management Review 17 (2): 327-351.
Henderson, A. D., and J. W. Fredrickson. 2001. Top management team coordination needs and the CEO pay gap: a competitive test of economic and behavioral views. Academy of Management Journal 44 (1): 96-117.
Hill, C. W., and G. Hansen. 1989. Institutional holdings and corporate R&D intensity in research intensive industries. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings 34 (1): 17-21.
Holmstrom, B. 1979. Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics Spring 10 (1): 74-91.
Hwang, R. N., and C. L. Li. 2021. Would executive compensation design and family ownership affect firm performance? An examination of agency theory and tournament theory. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, National Chengchi University, Taipei.
Jensen, M. C., and K. J. Murphy. 1990. Performance pay and top-management incentives. The Journal of Political Economy 98 (2): 225-264.
Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305-360.
Kren, L., and J. L. Kerr. 1993. The effect of behavior monitoring and uncertainty on the use of performance-contingent compensation. Accounting and Business Research 23 (90): 159.
Lambert, R. A., and Larcker, D.F.,1987. An analysis of the use of accounting and market measures of performance in executive compensation contracts. Journal of Accounting Research 25: 85-129.
Lazear, E. P. 1989. Pay equality and industrial politics. Journal of Political Economy 97 (3): 561-580.
Lazear, E., and S. Rosen. 1981. Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy 89: 841-864.
Leventhal, G. S. 1976. The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Elsevier 9: 91-131
Main, B. 1991. Top executive pay and performance. Managerial and Decision Economics 12: 219-229.
Main, B., C. A. O’Reilly, and J. Wade. 1993. Top executive pay: tournament or teamwork? Journal of Labor Economics 11: 606-628.
Martin, J. 1979. Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive injustice for an era of shrinking resources, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.
Milgrom P., Roberts J. 1988. An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology 94: 154-179.
Murphy, K. J. 1999. Executive compensation. Handbook of Labor Economics 3: 2485-2563.
O’reilly III, C. A., B. G. Main, and G. S. Crystal. 1988. CEO compensation as tournament and social comparison: A tale of two theories. Administrative Science Quarterly 33 (2): 257-274.
Parker, S. C. 2011. Intrapreneurship or entrepreneurship? Journal of Business venturing 26 (1): 19-34.
Pinchot III, G. 1985. Intrapreneuring: Why you don`t have to leave the corporation to become an entrepreneur. Paper presented at Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, Illinois.
Rosen, S. 1986. Prizes and incentives in elimination tournaments. American Economic Review 76: 701-715.
Sanders, W. G., and Carpenter, M. A. 1998. Internationalization and firm governance: The roles of CEO compensation, top team compensation, and board structure. Academy of Management Journal 41: 158-178.
Shefer, D., and A. Frenkel. 2005. R&D, firm size and innovation: an empirical analysis. Technovation 25 (1): 25-32.
Tsai, K. H., and J. C. Wang. 2004. The R&D performance in Taiwan`s electronics industry: a longitudinal examination. R&D Management 34 (2): 179-189.
Westphal, J. D., and Zajac, E. J. 1994. Substance and symbolism in CEOs` long-term incentive plans. Administrative Science Quarterly 39: 367-390.
Zahra, S. A. 1993. Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach. Journal of Business Venturing 8 (4): 319-340.
Zahra, S. A., and J. C. Covin. 1995. Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing 10 (1): 43–58. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
會計學系
109353021 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109353021 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202200803 |
| Appears in Collections: | [會計學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 302101.pdf | 852Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
