IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/wc2000/1440.html

Why Do Firms Use Incentives that Have No Incentive Effects?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Oyer

    (Stanford University)

Abstract

Firms often pay individuals for group-level, industry-level, or even economy-wide performance when agency theory suggests these contracts provide minimal incentive and lead to inefficient risk bearing. This paper derives a simple model of why firms might choose to implement stock options, profit sharing, and other pay instruments that reward (or penalize) "luck." The model relies on two key assumptions: 1) adjusting the terms of employment contracts is costly to the firm, and 2) agents' outside opportunities are not constant. I explore how firm-performance-based pay will respond to variation in risk aversion, workers' reservation utility, and the correlation between a firm's performance and that of the economy as a whole. I also discuss how the model fits with widely distributed stock options (especially in risky businesses such as high technology), executive compensation, and profit sharing. The model suggests that, while agency theory has focused on incentive compatibility, the often-overlooked participation constraint can help explain many common compensation schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Oyer, 2000. "Why Do Firms Use Incentives that Have No Incentive Effects?," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1440, Econometric Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecm:wc2000:1440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/1440.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hall, Brian J. & Murphy, Kevin J., 2002. "Stock options for undiversified executives," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-42, February.
    2. Jed Devaro & Fidan Ana Kurtulus, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Risk, Incentives and the Delegation of Worker Authority," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 63(4), pages 641-661, July.
    3. Carter, Mary Ellen & Lynch, Luann J., 2004. "The effect of stock option repricing on employee turnover," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 91-112, February.
    4. Ruslan Gurtoviy & Luis G. González, 2008. "How Much to Pay in Cash? Employee Retention via Stock Options," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-24, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    5. Campbell, Benjamin A., 2003. "Local Labor Market Conditions and Stock Options Incidence: A Study of the Information Technology Sector," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt7266d0q3, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    6. Jenter, Dirk, 2004. "Executive Compensation, Incentives, and Risk," Working papers 4466-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    7. J. Nellie Liang & Scott Weisbenner, 2001. "Who benefits from a bull market? an analysis of employee stock option grants and stock prices," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2001-57, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    8. Francine Lafontaine & Scott E. Masten, 2002. "Contracting in the Absence of Specific Investments and Moral Hazard: Understanding Carrier-Driver Relations in U.S. Trucking," NBER Working Papers 8859, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Pierre Chaigneau, 2012. "On the Value of Improved Informativeness," Cahiers de recherche 1205, CIRPEE.
    10. Brian J. Hall & Thomas A. Knox, 2002. "Managing Option Fragility," NBER Working Papers 9059, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Was erklärt die steigenden Managerlöhne? Ein Diskussionsbeitrag," IEW - Working Papers 081, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    12. Brian J. Hall & Thomas A. Knox, 2004. "Underwater Options and the Dynamics of Executive Pay‐to‐Performance Sensitivities," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(2), pages 365-412, May.
    13. DeVaro, Jed, 2011. "Using "opposing responses" and relative performance to distinguish empirically among alternative models of promotions," MPRA Paper 35175, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Kunz, Alexis H. & Pfaff, Dieter, 2002. "Agency theory, performance evaluation, and the hypothetical construct of intrinsic motivation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 275-295, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ecm:wc2000:1440. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.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.