Intra‐industry Performance Ranking and Relative Performance Evaluation

This study examines the association between firms’ intra‐industry performance ranking and the use of relative performance evaluation (RPE) in executive compensation plans. It finds an inverted U‐shape association between firms’ intra‐industry performance ranking and the use of RPE (i.e., compared to bottom‐ and top‐ranked firms, middle‐ranked firms are more likely to use RPE). This effect could be explained by the availability of similar peers in RPE incentive contracting: I find that both bottom‐ and top‐ranked firms have fewer similar peers, limiting their opportunities to efficiently practise RPE compared to middle‐ranked firms. Finally, the inverted U‐shape association is more pronounced for firms with higher potential costs induced by heterogeneous peers and for RPE that uses self‐selected peer groups. Overall, this study provides new evidence of the determinants of RPE use and suggests that the incentivization effect of RPE compensation plans varies with firms’ intra‐industry performance ranking.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Abacus
Published
2025-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12361
Primary Topic
Corporate Finance and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Intra‐industry Performance Ranking and Relative Performance Evaluation

Xiaohua Wu
Abacus
Corporate Finance and Governance
article

Intra‐industry Performance Ranking and Relative Performance Evaluation

Xiaohua Wu
article en

Abstract

This study examines the association between firms’ intra‐industry performance ranking and the use of relative performance evaluation (RPE) in executive compensation plans. It finds an inverted U‐shape association between firms’ intra‐industry performance ranking and the use of RPE (i.e., compared to bottom‐ and top‐ranked firms, middle‐ranked firms are more likely to use RPE). This effect could be explained by the availability of similar peers in RPE incentive contracting: I find that both bottom‐ and top‐ranked firms have fewer similar peers, limiting their opportunities to efficiently practise RPE compared to middle‐ranked firms. Finally, the inverted U‐shape association is more pronounced for firms with higher potential costs induced by heterogeneous peers and for RPE that uses self‐selected peer groups. Overall, this study provides new evidence of the determinants of RPE use and suggests that the incentivization effect of RPE compensation plans varies with firms’ intra‐industry performance ranking.

AbacusVol. 61(3)
University of Wollongong (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Corporate Finance and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.