| Abstract |
It is often assumed that bad corporate performance means a bad CEO.
The task of a board of directors is then simple: dismiss the executive. If it
fails to do so, the board is said to be indolent. We take a kinder approach
to observed board behaviour and point to the problems even well-intended
boards would encounter. They face the twin task of disciplining and screening
executives. To perform these tasks directors do not have detailed information
about executives behaviour, and only infrequently have information about
the success or failure of initiated strategies, reorganizations, mergers etc. We
analyse the nature of (implicit) retention contracts boards use to discipline
and screen executives. Consistent with empirical observation, we
nd that
executives may become overly active to show their credentials; that the link
between bad performance and dismissal is weak; and that boards occasionally
dismiss competent executives.It is often assumed that bad corporate performance means a bad CEO.
The task of a board of directors is then simple: dismiss the executive. If it
fails to do so, the board is said to be indolent. We take a kinder approach
to observed board behaviour and point to the problems even well-intended
boards would encounter. They face the twin task of disciplining and screening
executives. To perform these tasks directors do not have detailed information
about executives behaviour, and only infrequently have information about
the success or failure of initiated strategies, reorganizations, mergers etc. We
analyse the nature of (implicit) retention contracts boards use to discipline
and screen executives. Consistent with empirical observation, we
nd that
executives may become overly active to show their credentials; that the link
between bad performance and dismissal is weak; and that boards occasionally
dismiss competent executives. |