IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/kdifoc/77.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Retention of Underperforming CEOs and the Implications on Collusion – Controlling Management and Preventing Collusion by Strengthening the Independence of the Board

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Hwaryung

Abstract

An analysis of Korean firm data reveals that there is a higher tendency for CEOs in cartel firms to maintain their posts when the overall industrial performance, and not the individuals' relative performance, is high. This implies that an incentive for collusion, instead of competition, is created. Meanwhile, the outside directors of cartel firms have more social connections with the CEO in many cases and cast fewer opposing votes than those at competitive firms. Considering that CEO replacement is not pertinent to relative performance when a large proportion of the board of directors is close to the CEO or when there are no dissenting votes, enhancing board independence can deter the inclination to collude. - Replacing an underperforming CEO is the basic incentive for stimulating efforts. - Incentive mechanism for CEOs can have an impact on market competition as well as internal corporate management. - If CEO replacement is not sensitive to relative performance, collusion is more likely than competition. - As the performance of the overall industry, and not the CEO's relative performance, increases, the chances of CEO replacement at cartel firms declines. - In the case of owner-family CEOs, relative performance of the CEO does not determine replacement regardless of participation in collusion. - Underperforming CEOs have more chances of keeping their jobs in a company whose board has a high proportion of outside directors with social connections to the CEO or does not have dissenting outside directors. - In cartel firms, the boards have a higher proportion of outside directors with social ties to the CEO, and they serve longer terms. - Outside directors in cartel firms are less likely to oppose board agendas than those in non-cartel firms and are more likely to be replaced if he/she dissents. - Collusion can be deterred by strengthening independence of the board and implementing proper monitoring and punishment mechanism for underperforming CEOs.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Hwaryung, 2016. "The Retention of Underperforming CEOs and the Implications on Collusion – Controlling Management and Preventing Collusion by Strengthening the Independence of the Board," KDI Focus 77, Korea Development Institute (KDI).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:kdifoc:77
    DOI: 10.22740/kdi.focus.e.2016.77
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/200878/1/kdi-focus-77.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22740/kdi.focus.e.2016.77?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Murillo Campello & Daniel Ferrés & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2015. "Whistleblowers on the Board? The Role of Independent Directors in Cartel Prosecutions," Documentos de Trabajo/Working Papers 1502, Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales y Economia. Universidad de Montevideo..
    2. Tanja Artiga González & Markus Schmid & David Yermack, 2013. "Smokescreen: How Managers Behave When They Have Something To Hide," NBER Working Papers 18886, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Murillo Campello & Daniel Ferrés & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2017. "Whistle-Blowers on the Board? The Role of Independent Directors in Cartel Prosecutions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 241-268.
    4. Rajesh K. Aggarwal & Andrew A. Samwick, 1999. "Executive Compensation, Strategic Competition, and Relative Performance Evaluation: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(6), pages 1999-2043, December.
    5. Kim, Jaehoon & Lee, Hwaryung, 2015. "Outside Directors on Corporate Boards: Background and Behavior," KDI Focus 56, Korea Development Institute (KDI).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ferrés, Daniel & Ormazabal, Gaizka & Povel, Paul & Sertsios, Giorgo, 2021. "Capital structure under collusion," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Carlos Jiménez-Angueira & Nathan Stuart, 2015. "Relative performance evaluation, pay-for-luck, and double-dipping in CEO compensation," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 701-732, May.
    3. Armstrong, Christopher & Nicoletti, Allison & Zhou, Frank S., 2022. "Executive stock options and systemic risk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 256-276.
    4. Yoshifumi Hino & Yusuke Zennyo, 2017. "Corporate social responsibility and strategic relationships," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 64(3), pages 231-244, September.
    5. Aditi Sengupta, 2016. "Product Differentiation and Relative Performance Evaluation in an Asymmetric Duopoly," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(2), pages 627-633.
    6. Liang, Wen-Jung & Tseng, Ching-Chih & Wang, Kuang-Cheng Andy, 2011. "Location choice with delegation: Bertrand vs. Cournot competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 1774-1781, July.
    7. Tanja Artiga González & Markus Schmid & David Yermack, 2019. "Does Price Fixing Benefit Corporate Managers?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4813-4840, October.
    8. Ali, Ashiq & Klasa, Sandy & Yeung, Eric, 2014. "Industry concentration and corporate disclosure policy," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 240-264.
    9. Ya‐chin Wang & Leonard F.s. Wang, 2009. "Equivalence Of Competition Mode In A Vertically Differentiated Duopoly With Delegation," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 77(4), pages 577-590, December.
    10. Canice Prendergast, 2000. "The Tenuous Tradeoff Between Risk and Incentives," NBER Working Papers 7815, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Wunhong Su & Chun Guo & Xiaobao Song, 2022. "Media coverage, Environment Protection Law and environmental research and development: evidence from the Chinese-listed firms," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 6953-6983, May.
    12. Zhao, Kai & Wu, Wanshu, 2015. "Ambiguity Between Pirate Incentive And Collective Desirability Within Semi-Delegation Pattern," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 56(2), pages 259-279, December.
    13. Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2005. "Managerial incentives and collusive behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1501-1523, August.
    14. Antonio Falato, 2006. "Paying to Make a Difference: Executive Compensation and Product Dynamics," 2006 Meeting Papers 690, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    15. Werner Neus & Manfred Stadler, 2018. "Common holdings and strategic manager compensation: The case of an asymmetric triopoly," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(7), pages 814-820, October.
    16. Bushman, Robert M. & Smith, Abbie J., 2001. "Financial accounting information and corporate governance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 237-333, December.
    17. Fanti, Luciano & Gori, Luca & Sodini, Mauro, 2012. "Nonlinear dynamics in a Cournot duopoly with relative profit delegation," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 45(12), pages 1469-1478.
    18. Iván Barreda-Tarrazona & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Constantine Manasakis & Evangelos Mitrokostas & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2012. "Managerial compensation contracts in quantity-setting duopoly," Working Papers 2012/17, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    19. Murillo Campello & Daniel Ferrés & Gaizka Ormazabal, 2017. "Whistle-Blowers on the Board? The Role of Independent Directors in Cartel Prosecutions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 241-268.
    20. Chaigneau, Pierre & Edmans, Alex & Gottlieb, Daniel, 2018. "Does improved information improve incentives?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 291-307.

    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:zbw:kdifoc:77. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/kdiiikr.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.