The Use of Non-Verifiable Information Regarding the Agent’s Action in Compensation Contracts
- 1 School of Accounting, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
Abstract
Subjective, non-verifiable information (such as satisfaction rating) is often used to supplement objective, verifiable information (such as financial numbers) in contracting. Empirical research finds that non-verifiable information can be used in contracting as a subjective performance measure or as subjective weighting on an objective performance measure. The differences between the two options have not yet been thoroughly explored analytically. This paper considers a multi-task setting where the non-verifiable performance signal provides incremental information about an aspect of the agent’s action. The research finds that when the agent has unlimited liability, both contracting schemes deliver the same payoff to the principal. However, the principal may strictly prefer a subjective weighting scheme in a setting where the agent has limited liability.
- Baker, G.P., Jensen, M.C. and Murphy, K.J. (1988) Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory. Journal of Finance, 43, 593-616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb04593.x
- Bol, J. (2008) Subjectivity in Compensation Contracting. Journal of Accounting Literature, 27, 1-24.
- Gibbs, M., Merchant, K.A., Van der Stede, W.A. and Vargus, M.E. (2004) Determinants and Effects of Subjectivity in Incentives. Accounting Review, 79, 409-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/accr.2004.79.2.409
- Murphy, K. and Oyer, P. (2004) Discretion in Executive Incentive Contracts. Unpublished Working Paper, University of Southern California and Stanford University.
- Woods, A. (2012) Subjective Adjustments to Objective Performance Measures: The Influence of Prior Performance. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 37, 403-425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.06.001
- Bushman, R.M., Indjejikian, R.J. and Smith, A. (1996) CEO Compensation: The Role of Individual Performance Evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21, 161-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-4101(95)00416-5
- Ederhof, M. (2010) Discretion in Bonus Plans. Accounting Review, 85, 1921-1949. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.6.1921
- Hoppe, F. and Moers, F. (2011) The Choice of Different Types of Subjectivity in CEO Annual Bonus Contracts. Accounting Review, 86, 2023-2046. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/accr-10132
- Ittner, C.D., Larcker, D.F. and Meyer, M.W. (2003) Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures: Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard. Accounting Review, 78, 725-758. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.3.725
- Kreps, D.M. and Wilson, R. (1982) Reputation and Imperfect Information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27, 253-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(82)90030-8
- Baiman, S. and Rajan, M.V. (1995) The Informational Advantages of Discretionary Bonus Schemes. Accounting Review, 70, 557-579.
- Bull, C. (1983) Implicit Contracts in the Absence of Enforcement and Risk Aversion. American Economic Review, 73, 658-671.
- Bull, C. (1987) The Existence of Self-Enforcing Implicit Contracts. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102, 147-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1884685
- Levin, J. (2002) Multilateral Contracting and the Employment Relationship. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 1075-1103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355302760193968