UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 7.6 Free with a free account
How CEO and Executive Pay Is Changing in the United States
Human Resources Management · Chapter 7: Paying Employees: Salaries, Benefits, Bonuses, and Incentive ProgramsSection 7.6 · lesson 47 of 9116 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: At-Will Employment: What It Means and When It Does Not Apply →← Performance-Based Rewards: Individual and Company-WideNext lesson: At-Will Employment: What It Means and When It Does Not Apply →
In this lesson
Separate the package, the governance process, and the questions that evidence can answer.
- Classify 5 package components and their horizons
- Compare options, restricted stock, and performance shares
- Explain public-company governance and its limits
- Evaluate competing arguments without assuming a conclusion
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,867 words). Read along, or search it.
Paying Employees: Salaries, Benefits, Bonuses, and Incentive Programs
CEO and Executive Pay
Executive pay applies familiar compensation principles to decisions with especially visible organizational consequences. We will examine the package, then the governance process and competing public arguments. Some questions depend on evidence; others involve judgments about what rewards are justified. The lesson does not assume that one side of every disagreement must be correct. Separate fixed salary, annual awards, longer-term awards, benefits, and payments triggered by events. Their horizons and conditions differ, creating different incentives for the decisions executives make. Equity also comes in different forms. An option does not work like a restricted share. Governance provides information and accountability, without removing every measurement problem from the plan. Coverage matters. A rule for particular public companies does not apply to every employer. Our fictional committee case shows how reasonable individual comparisons can still create a collective concern. Finally, we will diagnose a package that could reward a shorter time horizon.
Five Package Components
Different Horizons Create Different Commitments
The five components classify packages by payment conditions, time horizon, and the exposure involved. Base salary supplies fixed cash. It may anchor incentive targets or other contractual payments. Annual incentives reward chosen yearly results, using financial measures, nonfinancial measures, or both. Long-term awards extend vesting or measurement across several years, beyond one annual period. Some depend on performance, others on continued service. Some combine both kinds of conditions. Benefits and perquisites can include supplementary retirement, insurance, examinations, and provisions beyond ordinary plans. Their importance depends on the package; do not assume every benefit has little value. Separation arrangements specify departure payments; change-in-control provisions describe conditions surrounding an acquisition or comparable event. An acquisition alone need not trigger payment; the agreement may also require job loss. For practice, distinguish annual cash results from shares vesting through several years of service. Then identify the component and horizon of payment following acquisition and role elimination.
Equity Instruments
The Same Share Price Creates Different Payoffs
A stock option gives the right to buy shares at a stated exercise price. A positive exercise spread requires share price above the exercise price, subject to eligibility. A flat market can leave an earlier option above its strike; grant timing matters. No immediate exercise gain does not necessarily mean an unexpired option has no value. The unexercised option's payoff is asymmetric: upside can grow, while exercise payoff has a floor. That differs from buying shares that can lose value below their purchase price. After exercising and holding shares, the executive bears ordinary share-price exposure on those shares. Restricted stock often requires continued service for vesting, rather than an explicit performance hurdle. It can retain value after price declines, although forfeiture and further declines remain possible. Performance shares add multi-year conditions. Choosing their hurdle reintroduces the measurement problems from incentives. Neither guarantees good decisions; understand the terms before inferring the behavior they may encourage.
Pay Mix and Measurement
Granted Value Is Different From Money Received
Pay mix describes how package value is divided among the different components of compensation. Equity matters in many large public-company packages, making market conditions more relevant to pay. Share price reflects company results, sector movements, interest rates, and events outside management control. A stronger equity link does not automatically isolate the chief executive's own individual contribution. Comparison requires consistent definitions. Granted value and realized proceeds answer different questions about pay. The Summary Compensation Table combines reported salary and bonuses with equity award valuations. Equity uses grant-date fair value; eventual realized value can be higher, lower, or absent. It is inaccurate to describe every reported compensation number as simply an award granted. Pay-versus-performance reporting uses a defined calculation called compensation actually paid, rather than merely cash received. Read definitions before matching the number with a performance measure or another pay disclosure. This prevents a valuation disagreement from masquerading as evidence about incentives or fairness.
Committees and Advisers
Independence Requires Attention to Relationships
The compensation committee determines or recommends senior pay within the board's relevant governance arrangements. Applicable listing standards address member independence, subject to their coverage and specified exceptions. Those assessing executive pay need sufficient distance from the executive whose pay they assess. A consultant supplies market evidence and design advice, creating another relationship to examine. The consulting firm might also sell other services whose purchase is influenced by management. The committee considers relevant independence factors, including other business, fees, relationships, stock interests, and conflict policies. These factors concern incentives and connections; they do not establish wrongdoing by an adviser. The rules require consideration; they do not demand that every selected adviser be entirely independent. The committee can retain an adviser after assessment, while addressing applicable disclosure obligations. Good intentions do not remove structural concerns. Identify the relationship and assess its significance. Consultation supports judgment; the committee does not transfer its decision responsibility to the consultant.
Voice and Visibility
Shareholders Can Respond Without Setting Every Payment
Say-on-pay gives covered shareholders an advisory vote on executive compensation, rather than a binding veto. A poor vote does not automatically cancel a package, although the response can matter. Its effect depends on board attention, investor concerns, and how subsequent decisions are explained. Compensation disclosure supplies tables and narrative about named officers, exposing the design to scrutiny. Visibility helps, but readers must distinguish grant valuations from earnings and realized cash proceeds. The pay ratio compares the chief executive's annual total compensation with the median employee's annual total. It is not chief executive salary divided by the median worker's base salary alone. Population and methodology affect results. Different workforce composition can substantially alter a pay comparison. Coverage has exemptions; not every public company is subject to an identical reporting requirement. A specific company's ratio needs current, verified data and a clearly identified reporting year. Examine consistent methods and populations before judging what changed, or why a trend occurred.
Recovery, Tax, and Scope
Legal Mechanisms Answer Specific Questions
Recovery provisions address incentive compensation awarded erroneously in connection with financial measures later requiring specified restatements. Applicable listing rules require recovery policies and disclosure, with detailed terms and limited exceptions to examine. This mechanism is different from automatically clawing back all pay whenever the business performs poorly. Nor does it apply only when an executive personally committed misconduct in the matter. Section one sixty-two, subsection m, generally limits relevant corporate deductions to one million dollars annually. It concerns covered employees of publicly held corporations, with exceptions and transitions requiring review. It limits tax deductions; it does not forbid the company from paying more compensation. Securities rules, listing standards, and tax provisions each have coverage conditions; they do not share one scope. Private and nonprofit employers face different regimes, including other governance and reporting obligations. Nonprofit compensation reporting can include Form nine ninety, subject to applicable filing requirements. HR coordinates with legal and finance specialists, preserving accurate administration while specialized rules are interpreted.
The Executive-Pay Debate
Strong Arguments and Their Challenges
Owners and managers have different interests, while owners cannot observe everything: the agency problem. Performance-linked pay gives managers a stake in value creation, helping address that agency problem. Alignment can be partial: asymmetric awards may reward gains more readily than impose losses. Supporters emphasize competitive talent and the large consequences of decisions made by senior leaders. That supports assessing capability and decision quality, rather than proving that any price works. Critics question whether market luck receives rewards, and whether above-median benchmarking creates upward pressure over time. Overlapping targets create plausible pressure; they do not mathematically guarantee yearly median increases. Pay ratios raise another issue: roles and workforce composition differ, while justified contribution is disputed. Multi-year equity may extend attention, yet annual targets and known vesting dates can favor shorter horizons. Evidence can test realized pay, market-adjusted outcomes, recruitment, and decisions near vesting dates in particular settings. Whether alignment is the right objective, or rewards are justified, requires explicit value judgments.
Reform Proposals
A Proposed Mechanism Also Needs a Response to Its Critique
Four reform categories each have an intended mechanism, alongside a standard concern to assess. Expanded disclosure seeks discipline through visibility, supplying more pay information to investors and employees. Critics ask whether publishing peer packages also fuels benchmarking and upward pressure on targets. Stronger governance might introduce binding votes or change committee composition, giving others greater authority. Would dispersed shareholders delegate decisions to advisers, and would the new arrangement improve judgment? Structural requirements might lengthen vesting, strengthen performance conditions, or require particular compensation recovery mechanisms. Critics anticipate formal compliance and movement of value into forms the requirement does not cover. Tax or ratio measures discourage high levels or wide gaps through specified financial consequences. Possible responses include restructuring and unintended effects on lower-paid workers; neither is automatically inevitable. These objections do not settle the debate. Specify intended behavior, likely responses, enforcement, and useful evidence. Compare actual alternatives, without treating either reform or current practice as an automatic success.
The HR Contribution
Decision Authority and Operational Responsibility Differ
HR supports executive pay decisions; the committee or owners usually hold final decision authority. Its data contribution includes checking peers, definitions, periods, and whether comparisons represent comparable circumstances. Selective peer construction can shape a target before anyone discusses the justification for it. HR administers approved plans, tracking awards, vesting, and payments against authorization and actual terms. Reconcile approved arrangements with actual payments, rather than merely maintaining the executive compensation spreadsheet. Disclosure brings HR together with legal and finance colleagues, using their different responsibilities and expertise. Specialized interpretation belongs with counsel, while HR retains responsibility for its own operational contribution. The workforce connection is distinctive: executive measures can reward something that employee incentives encourage people to ignore. Compare the arrangements directly, assessing the executive package within the organization that it affects. Explain disclosed numbers internally, with clear definitions and appropriate context about the underlying figures. Explain the decision's basis and trade-offs, without promising everyone will agree with the outcome.
Fictional Case: Priyanka
Everybody Wants the Upper Half
Priyanka supports a fictional public-company committee reviewing its chief executive against fourteen comparable organizations. The package is below peer median; the committee targets the upper half for retention. Priyanka finds eleven peers target at or above their substantially overlapping peer-group medians. That creates plausible upward pressure, even if each committee considers its own decision reasonable. It does not guarantee yearly increases. Targets, actual awards, and market conditions can differ. Retention remains a concern, while shareholders need a defensible explanation for the chosen target. Priyanka shows five years of peer-median movement alongside company performance over the same period. What capability or reduced recruitment risk is the committee buying by targeting above median? The committee keeps its position this year, requesting the same comparison at every annual review. Nothing changes immediately; the accepted trade-off makes the mechanism visible and part of the record. Committee, adviser, counsel, and HR jointly review peer quality and disclosure within their respective roles.
Reverse Problem and Chapter Review
What Package Could Favor a Shorter Horizon?
Consider canceling research with a six-year payback, deferring maintenance, and repurchasing shares near year-end. Each decision is lawful and defensible, yet the combination invites closer scrutiny of incentives. Annual earnings targets might favor delayed expenses, while per-share measures and near-term vesting may reward timing. These are hypotheses. Examine actual award conditions and decision evidence before attributing pay-driven motives. Longer horizons and balanced investment measures could reduce the incentive, depending on actual design. Track maintenance condition and future costs, rather than relying on the current financial result. The committee and board provide governance review, supported by accurate evidence and alternative designs. Chapter seven began with compensation objectives, then base-pay structures and how compression can arise. It separated pay-gap questions, required and chosen benefits, and variable-reward design and failure modes. Executive pay combines these issues visibly, without resolving every empirical or normative disagreement. Chapter eight turns to employees' working conditions, and how those conditions can be assessed.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About How CEO and Executive Pay Is Changing in the United States
What are the main components of a CEO pay package?
How is a stock option different from restricted stock for executives?
What is say-on-pay and is the shareholder vote binding?
How is the CEO pay ratio calculated?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →