Author
Listed:
- Suman Basuroy
- Kimberly C. Gleason
- Yezen H. Kannan
Abstract
Purpose - – The purpose of this article is to examine whether the design of chief executive officer (CEO) compensation generates incentives to engage in managerial behavior that enhances customer satisfaction and whether these incentives, in turn, lead to higher firm value. Design/methodology/approach - – A unique dataset combining customer satisfaction and executive compensation data was used, and the relationship between option sensitivity, customer satisfaction and performance was modeled using simultaneous equations modeling with industry and year fixed effects. Findings - – Findings suggest that CEO compensation plays an important role in explaining the variation in customer satisfaction and firm value. Specifically, CEO short-term compensation (salary or bonus) has no affect on customer satisfaction or firm value; the sensitivity of CEO wealth from long-term incentive compensation to stock price changes is positively related and also exhibits an inverted U-shaped relationship with customer satisfaction; the sensitivity of CEO wealth from long-term incentive compensation to stock price changes interacts negatively with CEO longevity and industry concentration but positively with advertising expenses in affecting customer satisfaction; the sensitivity of CEO wealth from long-term incentive compensation to both stock price changes and customer satisfaction positively affect firm value; and the sensitivity of CEO wealth from long-term incentive compensation to stock price changes interacts positively with customer satisfaction to affect firm value. Research limitations/implications - – This study suffers from several limitations. First, the sample is limited to firms with ACSI scores available. Second, this study is limited to only publicly traded firms, which limits our ability to generalize regarding customer satisfaction, option sensitivity and firm value. Practical implications - – This study has several important implications for researchers and managers. The first is that the corporate board appears to view investment in customer satisfaction as similar to an investment in other intangible assets or technology, in that they reward managers with a nonlinear payoff profile. To encourage managers to invest discretionary funds wisely, incentive compensation is important. Second, compensation committees of corporate boards should not allow the option sensitivity to reach extreme levels because, at some point, managers’ incentives appear to shift more toward short-term earnings objectives and away from investment in intangibles, which have a longer-term payoff. Third, if boards are concerned about customer satisfaction and market value, when designing compensation packages, they should shift their focus from the structure of pay to the sensitivity of pay to performance. The exception to this is that for CEOs with very long tenures (or for those close to retirement), high levels of option sensitivity may distort incentives away from a focus on customer satisfaction. Finally, our results indicate that strategies that enhance customer satisfaction provide an incremental benefit in terms of firm value, beyond incentive compensation strategies. Social implications - – The results indicate that a “stakeholder focus” which includes customers is value adding for shareholders as well. The results also imply that perhaps using a “balanced scorecard” approach to assessing performance in terms of customer satisfaction outcomes, or at least acknowledging the drives of customer satisfaction explicitly, could be an alternative to using highly sensitive incentive-based compensation when such compensation schemes are less desirable. Originality/value - – Prior research has found that the structure of fixed versus incentive-based compensation impacts customer satisfaction. However, this is one of the first papers to investigate the relationship between the sensitivity of CEO compensation and customer satisfaction. Findings have important implications for boards who seek to structure CEO pay so that CEOs have incentives to enact policies that benefit customers and, in turn, firm performance.
Suggested Citation
Suman Basuroy & Kimberly C. Gleason & Yezen H. Kannan, 2014.
"CEO compensation, customer satisfaction, and firm value,"
Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 13(4), pages 326-352, November.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:rafpps:v:13:y:2014:i:4:p:326-352
DOI: 10.1108/RAF-11-2012-0120
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Ryan Flugum & Choonsik Lee & Matthew E. Souther, 2023.
"What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas? Firsthand experience and EDGAR search activity in Las Vegas casino hotels,"
Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 52(3), pages 409-432, September.
- Sadaf Ajmal & Sana-Ur -Rehman, 2019.
"An Implementation of Customer Relationship Management and Customer satisfaction in Banking Sector of Quetta, Balochistan,"
International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(10), pages 26-37, October.
- Huang, Ming-Hui & Trusov, Michael, 2020.
"Customer satisfaction underappreciation: The relation of customer satisfaction to CEO compensation,"
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 129-150.
- St. Dwiarso Utomo & Zaky Machmuddah & Dian Indriana Hapsari, 2021.
"The Role of Manager Compensation and Integrated Reporting in Company Value: Indonesia vs. Singapore,"
Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, October.
- Zulfikar Ikhsan Pane & Roy Sembel & Yvonne Agustine, 2021.
"Street earnings as a mediator of the effect of intellectual capital disclosure, customer value, and research development activities on firm value,"
Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 25(1), pages 242-259, November.
- Hania Rehman & Muhammad Ramzan & Muhammad Zia Ul Haq & Jinsoo Hwang & Kyoung-Bae Kim, 2021.
"Risk Management in Corporate Governance Framework,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
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:eme:rafpps:v:13:y:2014:i:4:p:326-352. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.