The Compensation Of Executive Marketing

This paper will discuss the reasons why CEOs are not being overpaid. It will apply the utilitarian ethical principle to many a few aspects to CEO compensation and whether or not it is justifiable for such pay. The paper will look at whether or not their performance is justifiable for the pay because they play such a big role in the livelihood of the company along with the principle agency theory and how it is being addressed for the benefit of the shareholders and others involved with the company, the supply and demand of the CEOs, and the paper will describe the comparison of other professions to help link the idea of CEOs being fairly compensated.

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).

The CEO’s compensation should be set on how well the firm performs and should be awarded based on the performance of the stocks in the long run. It is easier to measure performance by the growth rate in the profits that have been reported since intrinsic value cannot be fully

3. Total Rewards Strategy – This structure is very complex, yet comes with a lot of flexibility to allow for growth and internal satisfaction. The pitfalls with this structure come with the implementation, which could be treacherous and difficult to convey to our employees.

However, there have been many cases where the CEO and executive officers receive outrageous compensation even when the companies suffer. Overall, there is a wide disconnect between the incentive of the executives and the financial performance of their company, which needs to be fixed. By passing regulations and rules such as the Dodd-Frank Act, there is hope of shedding light on the connection between the company’s performance and the executives pay. Although it will provide a clear insight, it will not be able to set a strict regulated compensation or define what an executive should earn. Instead regulations will allow for more transparency for the shareholders regarding corporate governance issues such as executive pay. Along with that, it will force companies to take accountability for their actions. If they do poorly, then the executives should be paid less, and vice versa. Overall, there should be a direct alignment between executive pay and the company’s

Official compensation comprises of both an altered part and also a variable (or “at risk”) part which comprises of different STI and LTI components that suitably reflect executive's’ duties, responsibilities and outcome against objectives. It guarantees that compensation suitably attracts and motivates kin of the most elevated nature. The variable part includes: -

This paper will examine setting the stage for strategic compensation and bases for pay. There are three main goals of compensation departments: internal consistency, market competitiveness, and recognition of individual contributions. Internally consistent compensation systems define the relative value of each job among all jobs within a company. (Martocchio, pg. 22, 2011) With this system companies want employees to be paid more based on their qualifications and responsibilities. They believe someone with less experience should be paid differently. To determine such evaluation companies use job analysis in order to provide job descriptions. The job evaluation is to determine pay according to a particular position. Market-competitive

The second compensation package was not well designed nor did it help define what the corporate strategy would be. For a second time the compensation package focused on maximizing shareholder’s wealth and didn’t take into consideration the stakeholder’s position at all. Dunlap’s package was deeply weighted in company options ($3.75M). In fact it was weighted heavier than before. The stock grants were

Because of their compensation sets the pattern the criticism particularly focus on the CEO’s high pay as well. Just like the previous criticism, there are current complaints which focused on at least two issues: Executives are paid too much and because the connection between executives current incentive-pay schemes are flawed. Because of these issues the company performance at best is mixed and at worst has led to a series of dysfunctional behaviors (Lorsch & Khurana, 2010). As the pay gap between chief executive officers and American workers of public companies grow; the question has aroused as to what drives the pay of the CEO’s and what’s behind the disparity. It is a known fact that it is a big disparity between the pay of other worker and the CEO pay in corporate America but what is the reason this disparity exists? The first major justification is an incentive for performance that is put forth by corporations; this helps explains the CEO pay level. They thought in order to attract the right candidate who will impact the performance of the organization is that they have to pay big. If this happens the shareholders of the company can get a better return on their investments. What has been justified as compensation for executives is to provide them with some form of stock grants as a form of incentive with

It was reasonable for a CEO’s compensation to increase as the company expanded and became a larger entity, and the newly-granted shares and increasing stock options further aligned the CEO’s personal interests with those of the company and shareholders. In this sense, the second compensation package was also well-structured and not excessive. Seeing Sunbeam’s revenue rising and stock price climbing steeply upwards, Sunbeam’s shareholders and directors were fully convinced by Dunlap’s leadership, so they might perceive the increase in compensation amount necessary to retain and better motivate Dunlap to enhance the company’s value. Nonetheless, they neglected the fact that the increased portion of the equity-based compensation also further motivated the CEO’s dangerous behaviors pertaining to improper earnings management.

This is in sharp contrast to the US, where these two components account for 25% and 39% of total payment, respectively (Fernandes et al., 2012 and Schultz et al., 2013). In addition, Murphy (2013) and Schultz et al. (2013) argue that US companies remuneration model is based on tax policies that place a $1 million cap on deductible cash remuneration and US stock exchange listing rules that encourage equity and options components of remuneration. However, comparable inducements in form of regulated payments are not observed in the Australian market (Schultz et al., 2013) and normally, these incentives promote shareholders’ wealth by aligning managers and stock holders interests.

The components of executive pay are base pay, bonuses, and long-term incentive plans. Several hypotheses on pay justification were derived from James B. Wade at the University of Illinois. Generally, the greater the shareholder involvement, the more market performance is emphasized; the greater the incentive bonuses are, the more accounting performance is emphasized.

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

The relationship between executive compensation and firm performance is a topic of major concern amongst academics, professionals, and regulators. In an effort to identify a relationship between executive pay and firm performance, scholars have conducted research since 1925 and have established that compensation packages are the primary means of incentivizing managers to achieve certain financial targets or goals. These goals include certain performance measures that can be broken down into three main categories: accounting based, measures, market based measures, and non-financial based measures. Additionally, compensation packages have become an increasingly researched topic due to the surge in levels of compensation in

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