Ahmet C. Kurt and Nancy Chun Feng
1. INTRODUCTION
Despite the importance of chief executive officer (CEO) performance evaluation for firm outcomes, there is no agreement in practice regarding the nature of performance criteria to be included in CEO compensation contracts (Angelis &Grinstein, 2014; Lipman & Hall, 2008; Murphy, 1999). Unlike quantitative criteria (e.g., net income, cash flows, market share), qualitative criteria such as displaying strong leadership, mentoring other executives, and implementing a strategic vision are used relatively less commonly perhaps because they are difficult to define and measure on an objective basis.
In fact, a recent CEO performance evaluation survey by HayGroup (2015, p. 22) highlights “a possible trend toward overreliance on easily quantifiable metrics, to the detriment of other qualitative aspects of performance.”1 This trend is puzzling because theory suggests that an optimal bonus contract should include a qualitative assessment to supplement quantitative performance measures (e.g., Baker, Gibbons, & Murphy, 1994). To shed light on this issue, we investigate the firm performance implications of the use of qualitative criteria in CEO bonus contracts. In doing so, we aim to further understanding of the link between executive compensation contract design and firm performance. Our work complements and extends previous research focusing on the roots of subjectivity in CEO bonus contracts (e.g., Bushman, Indjejikian, & Smith, 1996; Höppe & Moers, 2011; Ittner, Larcker, & Ragan, 1997; Schiehll & Bellavance, 2009).
Our goal is to examine the consequences of the qualitative versus quantitative nature of the performance criteria included in CEO bonus contracts (not the consequences of CEO bonus plan subjectivity as a broad concept). We acknowledge that the use of qualitative criteria in CEO bonus contracts captures one aspect of the subjectivity embedded in such contracts. That is, CEO bonus contracts and performance evaluation become more subjective when companies rely on qualitative criteria in addition to quantitative metrics in determining CEO bonus payments. The level of subjectivity in CEO bonus payments is, of course, influenced by other factors such as the amount of bonuses paid at the discretion of the board of directors and whether bonus payments are calculated based on a preset formula. Our focus is specifically on the use of qualitative performance criteria such as leadership, other interpersonal skills, and strategic implementations, which have attracted significant attention from practitioners, consultants, and academics from various disciplines (e.g., Aiken & Keller, 2007; Donatiello, Larcker, & Tayan, 2017; Groysberg & Connolly, 2013; Harris & Helfat, 1997; Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, & Yammarino, 2004; Trapp, 2016; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Pura...