Case Study “Al Dunlap at Sunbeam”

In “The Overpaid CEO” Susan Homberg and Mark Schmitt bring to attention how CEO pay in America is ridiculous in numbers as opposed to other parts of the world. Looking back, in the nineteen hundreds CEO pay was relativity average. As businesses and companies began to expand there was a demand for higher pay. Between 1978-2012 CEO pay increased by 875%! Many rules and regulations were put in to place to limit the pay of a CEO, such as the Securities Exchange Act that I will explain later on, regardless CEO pay kept getting higher and higher as many loopholes were found. Bonuses pay a large part in the salaries of CEOS’, as an effect CEOS’ tend to partake in risky behavior in order to score those big paychecks.

In the case presented both AFLAC and L.L. Bean had their own distinctive ways of utilizing their products in order to enhance the total compensation for its employees. The factor that has deterred more employees away from their current employer is that of benefit packages, and reward systems. As stated by () “compensation affects a person economically, sociologically, and psychologically. For this reason, mishandling compensation issues is likely to have a strong negative impact on employees and, ultimately, on the firm’s performance” (p.313). Many felt just a bump in pay wasn’t enough to substantiate their hard work or the efforts that the performance efforts provided to their organization. As stated by () “the right total rewards system a blend of monetary and non-monetary

Compensation systems can take on many forms, all of which have positives and negatives related to it. However, certain components are noted to be determinants of solid compensation plans. One agreement of a solid compensation system is the use of incentives. “Clearly a successful companies set objectives that will provide incentives to increase profitability” (Needles & Powers, 2011). Incentive bonuses should be measures that the company finds important to long-term growth. According to Needles & Powers (2011) the most successful companies long term focused on profitability measures. For large for-profit firms, compensation programs should offer stock options. The interweaving between the market value of a company’s stock and company’s performance both motivate and increase compensation to employees As the market value of the stock goes up, the difference between the option price and the market price grows, which increases the amount of compensation” (Needles & Powers, 2011). Conclusively, a compensation plan should serve all stakeholders, be simple, group employees properly, reflect company culture and values, and be flexible (Davis & Hardy, 1999; The Basics of a Compensation Program).

As an attorney with the legal firm Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC, Thomas M. Dunlap assists clients in the Washington, D.C., and Northern Virginia area, including the counties of Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax and Loudoun. He focuses his practice on the areas of intellectual property, entertainment and sports, business and aviation and aerospace law. Typical cases involve matters related to patents, contract disputes, trade secrets, trademarks or copyrights.

Like several companies, Nortel stipendiary their executives with stock choices (Collins, 2011). This compensation solely inspired the tendency to be but honest regarding the company’s finances. author closely-held stock choices that solely inspired his actions to fulfill or beat the benchmark set by analysts. If Nortel’s earnings showed to be higher than the benchmark, Nortel’s stock costs would rise creating the stock closely-held by management to be even a lot of valuable. By tweaking the books to indicate the road earnings price as critical the allowable accumulation price he created the stakeholders assume that the corporate was creating extra money than it had been. “Nortel ne'er incomprehensible a benchmark over the sixteen quarters (Collins, 2011).” it had been too tempting to bump the numbers up so the stocks gave the impression to be value over they were. “Nortel’s accounting practices junction rectifier to AN investigation by AN freelance review committee, that found that insubordination with accumulation and accounting fraud were undertaken to fulfill internally obligatory earnings targets (Collins, 2011).”

Through out his tenure at Sunbeam,Al Dunlap’s advocated profit by firing many employees and shutting down many factories.If we look at it in the short term ,this approach seems very attractive as it brings in quick short term gains.In the long term ,however, such a decision would not ensure the sustainability of the company. Profitability and responsibility can

This was a very interesting article, in my opinion it brings to mind the derived phrase, which came first the chicken or the egg. Meaning, is corporate governance an attempt to control the results of unethical practices of corporations or is it meant to deter them. In reading this article, it is clear that certain corporations practiced unethical business behaviors for self-interest, but the questions this author have are: 1. Should corporate governance be regulated by the legislature as well as the organization and to what degree, 2. Is corporate governance, there to protect the shareholder or the stakeholder, 3. How effective is corporate governance on a global level. The need for a governance system is based on the assumption that the separation between the owners of a company and its management provides self-interest executives the opportunity to take actions that benefit themselves, with the cost of these actions borne by the owners (Larcker & Tayan, 2008).

Dunlap’s salary was just over $500k and he took no bonus. But he received a substantial stock option and award package. The restricted stock award component was to vest in two years, meaning that Dunlap’s compensation would be closely linked to the company’s stock performance for that time. Although the short term profits benefited shareholders, no incentives to create a long term, profitable company existed. Sunbeam’s performance-based incentives brought greater motivation to Dunlap to increase the firm’s stock value by any means necessary. He created remarkable shareholder value, in part by cutting half the company's 12,000 workers and closing many plants. Generally speaking, the first compensation package was excessive, but it linked the CEO’s and stockholders’ goals. It was not well designed, but it was congruent with Sunbeam’s business model of maximizing shareholder profits, but it drove an unhealthy behavior.

In his words “Capitalism is also about the factories, the customers, the employees, the government, and the innovation and the hard work of the people who make the products and build the companies.” It seemed that Auhll was a believer in long-term shareholder value creation approach of stakeholder theory, but Auhll’s controversial actions spoke louder than his words. It turned out that, Auhll’s apparent long-term shareholder-value creation focus was contradicting with some of his own behavior. Auhll’s total compensation package was made up of base salary and performance bonus; where percentage of his base salary pay was increasing year by year and the bonus percentage was shrinking; especially during the years Circon struggled through the poor performance and the US Surgical’s(USS) hostile takeover attempt as depicted in the ‘compensation Summary appendix1’. Also, according to the case exhibit(4) footnote on page 21 of the case “Auhll’s was the member of his own compensation committee,” which was creating ‘conflict of interest’ and was against the core corporate governance guideline. Based on this, we can conclude that Auhll’s financial incentives were detached from stockholders best interests and CEO didn’t seem to have a strong long-term incentive. As shown in the exhibit 1-c of the case(p. 17), the HCMP product index was

Through out his tenure at Sunbeam,Al Dunlap’s advocated profit by firing many employees and shutting down many factories.If we look at it in the short term ,this approach seems very attractive as it brings in quick short term

In the article, “Wages of Failure: The Ethics of Executive Compensation” General Global is faced with a complex decision after new CEO, Janice White, requests to be paid based on performance. Her predecessor, former CEO Bill Hogson, seemingly underperformed for the company for nearly a year and stepped down with a huge exit package totaling $100 million (two years salary with bonuses). This caused an outcry by the press for less greed among America’s corporate executives. Janice White, formerly CFO of General Global, feels that by changing the companies pay policy to pay the CEO based on performance would increase stakeholder faith in the corporation. By being paid based on merit rather than by a market based industry standard would

This report explores the issue of the pay that top executives make, and the reasons why they do. It also suggests improvements that can be made to make the system better. High Pay Seems Small When Compared To Company Profits Many companies pull in profits that are extremely high. When an employee of such a companies salary is compared to the amount of profit that the company earns, it starts to seem reasonable. It only makes sense that if the employee is directly responsible for the success of their company, then they deserve to get their payback. It seems ironic, but many salaries even look small once compared with a companies profits. Top Executives Are Under A Lot Of Pressure Being the CEO of a

Given the effect a CEO can have on a company's success, we can understand why their compensation packages

Sunbeam, a maker of such products as Sunbeam electric blankets and Oster blenders, is now in bankruptcy reorganization. Without admitting or denying the charges, the company settled related administrative proceedings filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission was accepting further violations of securities laws. The S.E.C. did not seek monetary damages. Albert J. Dunlap became a corporate star in the 1990's, making tens of millions for himself as he laid off thousands of employees.

Executives and those responsible for misdeeds should have been subject to significant clawbacks of compensation. If the reason they misbehaved and took inappropriate risks was to raise compensation, losing that compensation would be an appropriate punishment.