Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcast
  • Managing the Future of Work Podcast
  • About Us
  • Book
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Podcasts
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
    • Working Paper Summaries
  • Browse All
    Relative Performance Benchmarks: Do Boards Get It Right?
    26 Jan 2017Working Paper Summaries

    Relative Performance Benchmarks: Do Boards Get It Right?

    by Paul Ma, Jee Eun Shin, and Charles C.Y. Wang
    Use of relative performance based (RPE) grants has been steadily increasing. Common wisdom is that such grants help induce costly effort from the CEO by shielding them from performance shocks that are outside of their control. This study raises questions about the use of index-based benchmarks in lieu of a narrower set of specific peers.
    LinkedIn
    Email

    Author Abstract

    Standard principal-agent models suggest that boards design incentive contracts that filter out common shocks in performance to motivate costly effort from the CEO---a process entailing the judicious selection of benchmarks for relative performance evaluation (RPE). We evaluate the efficacy of firms' chosen RPE benchmarks and document that, relative to a normative benchmark, index-based benchmarks perform 14% worse in their time-series return-regression R2 and 16% worse in measurement error variance; firms choosing specific peers only modestly under-perform. Structural estimates suggest that, absent frictions, the underperformance of index-based benchmarks imply a performance penalty of 106-277 basis points in annual returns. Consistent with these estimates, firms choosing index-based benchmarks exhibit lower annual returns and ROA. Finally, reduced-form analyses suggest that the inefficient benchmarking is associated with governance-related frictions. Collectively, these findings provide new evidence on the explicit practice of RPE and its implications for corporate governance and firm performance.

    Paper Information

    • Full Working Paper Text
    • Working Paper Publication Date: January 2017
    • HBS Working Paper Number: HBS Working Paper #17-039
    • Faculty Unit(s): Accounting and Management
      Trending
        • 13 Aug 2021
        • Research & Ideas

        Managers, Here’s How to Bond with New Hires Remotely

        • 09 Dec 2019
        • Research & Ideas

        Identify Great Customers from Their First Purchase

        • 25 Feb 2019
        • Research & Ideas

        How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

        • 13 May 2022
        • Research & Ideas

        Company Reviews on Glassdoor: Petty Complaints or Signs of Potential Misconduct?

        • 30 Nov 2021
        • Cold Call Podcast

        TikTok: Super App or Supernova?

    Charles C.Y. Wang
    Charles C.Y. Wang
    Glenn and Mary Jane Creamer Associate Professor of Business Administration
    Contact
    Send an email
    → More Articles
    Find Related Articles
    • Performance Effectiveness
    • Executive Compensation
    • Motivation and Incentives

    Sign up for our weekly newsletter

    Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
    ǁ
    Campus Map
    Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
    Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
    Soldiers Field
    Boston, MA 02163
    Email: Editor-in-Chief
    →Map & Directions
    →More Contact Information
    • Make a Gift
    • Site Map
    • Jobs
    • Harvard University
    • Trademarks
    • Policies
    • Digital Accessibility
    Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College