IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orinte/v43y2013i6p602-604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Ombudsman: Is the Evidence Sufficient to Take Action on Executive Pay? Reply to Commentators

Author

Listed:
  • J. Scott Armstrong

    (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104; and Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5001, Australia)

  • Philippe Jacquart

    (EMLYON Business School, 69134 Ecully, France)

Abstract

The experimental evidence in this collection of papers is sufficient for organizations to take action—at least with respect to investigating or testing alternative pay schemes. Some organizations have already implemented a number of these procedures. The failure of an organization’s directors to follow evidence-based procedures for executive pay might be used as a basis for legal action by shareholders when results are detrimental to a firm.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Scott Armstrong & Philippe Jacquart, 2013. "The Ombudsman: Is the Evidence Sufficient to Take Action on Executive Pay? Reply to Commentators," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 602-604, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:43:y:2013:i:6:p:602-604
    DOI: 10.1287/inte.2013.0710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.2013.0710
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/inte.2013.0710?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Scott Armstrong, 1982. "The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Review of empirical research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(3), pages 197-211, July.
    2. Armin Falk & James J. Heckman, 2009. "Lab Experiments are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences," Working Papers 200935, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    3. Armstrong, J. Scott & Reibstein, David J., 1985. "Evidence on the Value of Strategic Planning in Marketing: How Much Planning Should a Marketing Planner Plan?," MPRA Paper 81680, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Robin M. Hogarth & Gueorgui I. Kolev, 2013. "The Ombudsman: The “Wicked” Environment of CEO Pay," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 596-598, December.
    5. Kesten C. Green & J. Scott Armstrong, 2005. "Competitor-oriented Objectives: The Myth of Market Share," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 17/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    6. Green, Kesten C., 2005. "Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 463-472.
    7. Derek C. Jones, 2013. "The Ombudsman: Employee Ownership as a Mechanism to Enhance Corporate Governance and Moderate Executive Pay Levels," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 599-601, December.
    8. Christopher S. Armstrong, 2013. "The Ombudsman: A Closer Look at the Efficiency of Top Executive Pay and Incentives," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 590-592, December.
    9. Philippe Jacquart & J. Scott Armstrong, 2013. "The Ombudsman: Are Top Executives Paid Enough? An Evidence-Based Review," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 580-589, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Villiers, Rouxelle & Woodside, Arch G. & Marshall, Roger, 2016. "Making tough decisions competently: Assessing the value of product portfolio planning methods, devil’s advocacy, group discussion, weighting priorities, and evidenced-based information," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2849-2862.
    2. J. Scott Armstrong, 1986. "The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Reply," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 183-185, March.
    3. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    4. Potters, Jan & Stoop, Jan, 2016. "Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 26-33.
    5. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    6. Abeler, Johannes & Becker, Anke & Falk, Armin, 2012. "Truth-Telling: A Representative Assessment," IZA Discussion Papers 6919, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Danila Serra, 2012. "Combining Top-Down and Bottom-Up Accountability: Evidence from a Bribery Experiment," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 569-587, August.
    8. Phillips, Jon C. & Peterson, H. Christopher, 1999. "Strategic Planning And Firm Performance: A Proposed Theoretical Model For Small Agribusiness Firms," Staff Paper Series 11685, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Amadou Boly & Robert Gillanders & Topi Miettinen, 2016. "Deterrence, peer effect, and legitimacy in anti-corruption policy-making: An experimental analysis," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2016-137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. Lechthaler, Wolfgang & Ring, Patrick, 2021. "Labor force participation, job search effort and unemployment insurance in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 748-778.
    11. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    12. Pan He & Marcella Veronesi & Stefanie Engel, 2016. "Consistency of Risk Preference Measures and the Role of Ambiguity: An Artefactual Field Experiment from China," Working Papers 03/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    13. Amadou Boly & Robert Gillanders & Topi Miettinen, 2016. "Deterrence, peer effect, and legitimacy in anti-corruption policy-making: An experimental analysis," WIDER Working Paper Series 137, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    14. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk, 2011. "Performance Pay and Multidimensional Sorting: Productivity, Preferences, and Gender," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 556-590, April.
    15. Cox, Caleb & Davis, Douglas & Korenok, Oleg & Lightle, John, 2023. "Stress tests and information disclosure: An experimental analysis," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    16. Lieselotte Blommaert & Marcel Coenders & Frank Tubergen, 2014. "Ethnic Discrimination in Recruitment and Decision Makers’ Features: Evidence from Laboratory Experiment and Survey Data using a Student Sample," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(3), pages 731-754, May.
    17. Jacqueline Chen Chen & Tony Tam & Yen-sheng Chiang, 2019. "The Rise of Merit-based Inequality Acceptance After Exposure to Competition: Experimental Evidence among Chinese University Students," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(2), pages 707-728, July.
    18. Ginny Seung Choi & Virgil Henry Storr, 2020. "Market interactions, trust and reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-32, May.
    19. Debarliev, Stojan & Trpkova, Marija, 2011. "Strategic planning practice in transition economies: Empirical evidence from the Macedonian context," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center (PRADEC), vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, January.
    20. Thieme, Lutz & Winkelhake, Olaf & Hartmann, Ulrich, 2014. "Fairness als universelle Norm? Empirische Evidenz ohne Manna [Fairness as a universal norm? Empiric evidence without manna]," Working Papers of the European Institute for Socioeconomics 12, European Institute for Socioeconomics (EIS), Saarbrücken.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orinte:v:43:y:2013:i:6:p:602-604. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.