تبیین انتخاب قراردادهای انگیزشی ترکیبی: قراردادهای بازپس‌گیری

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار حسابداری، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دکتری حسابداری، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

این پژوهش رفتار افراد را نسبت به قراردادهای انگیزشی ترکیبی مختلف مبتنی بر سود و زیان مورد تبیین قرار می‌دهد. ترجیحات ریسک با استفاده از معیار ریسک‌گریزی هالت و لاری (2002) و ترجیحات زیان با استفاده از معیار زیان‌‌گریزی برینک و رنکین (2013) با اندکی تغییرات با توجه به شرایط پرداخت حقوق و مزایا در ایران، اندازه‌گیری شد. رابطه میان این ترجیحات و رفتار افراد طبق قراردادهای انگیزشی متفاوت ولی از لحاظ اقتصادی یکسان، با استفاده از روش آزمایشگاهی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. با استفاده از 92 نفر آزمودنی و انجام چهار مرحله آزمایش جداگانه، نتایج حاصل از تحقیق نشان داد که رابطه‌ای منفی میان زیان‌گریزی و قبول قراردادهای دارای جریمه وجود دارد. همچنین افراد قرارداد بازپس‌گیری نوع اول را که در آن پاداش بیشتر از جریمه است به قرارداد بازپس‌گیری نوع دوم که در آن جریمه بیشتر از پاداش است، ترجیح می‌دهند. چارچوب‌گرایی قراردادها و اثر مالکیت در انتخاب افراد نقش بسیار مهمی را ایفا می‌کند. عدم موفقیت تئوری‌های مرسوم عقلانیت اقتصادی در توضیح رفتار افراد در این پژوهش به اثبات رسید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Explaining combined incentive contracts’ choices: Clawback contracts

نویسندگان [English]

  • Sasan Mehrani 1
  • Mohsen Motmaen 2
1 Associate Professor in Accounting, University of Tehran, Iran
2 Ph. D of Accounting, University of Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

This study explains the individual’s behavior toward profits and losses contained in differently framed combined incentive contracts. Individual’s risk preferences and loss preferences are measured using Holt and Laury (2002) measure of risk aversion and Brink and Rankin (2013) measure of loss aversion, respectively. The last measure was adjusted with compensation characteristics in Iran. The relationship between these preferences and individual’s behavior under economically equivalent contracts of different frames is examined using experiment. Participating 92 subjects as well as conducting four separate experiments, the result indicated that there is a negative relationship between loss aversion and accepatance of contracts which have penalty component. Also, subjects preferred the first clawback contract (bonus>penalty) rather than the second clawback contract (bonus<penalty). In other words, contracts framing as well as endowment effect play a vital role in individual choices. Failure of common economic theories in explaining of individual behavior is confirmed in this study.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • loss aversion
  • clawback contracts
  • management accounting
  • framing
*      دانایی فرد، حسن؛ الوانی، سید مهدی و عادل آذر، (1389)، روش شناسی پژوهش کمی در مدیریت: رویکرد جامع، تهران، انتشارات صفار

*      Baker, G. P., Jensen, M. C. and Murphy, K. J. (1988). Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. theory. Journal of Finance. 43(3): 593-616.

*      Brink, G., and W. Rankin. (2013). The effects of risk preferences and loss aversion on individual behavior under bonus, penalty, and combined contract frames. Behavioral Research in Accounting 25 (2): 145-170.

*      Brown, A. B., Davis-Friday, P. Y., and Guler, L. (2011). Economic determinants of the voluntary adoption of clawback provisions in executive compensation contracts. www.ssrn.com

*      Chen, M. A., Greene, D. T., and Owers, J. E. (2015). The costs and benefits of clawback provisions in CEO compensation. Review of Corporate Finance Studies 4 (1): 108-154.

*      Christian, C., and S. Gupta. (1994). The relation between the use of tax preparers and tax payers’ prepayment position. Journal of the American Taxation Association 16: 72–93.

*      Church, B. K., T. Libby, and P. Zhang. (2008). Contracting frame and individual behavior: Experimental evidence. Journal of Management Accounting Research 20: 153–168.

*      Dehaan, E., Hodge, F., and Shevlin, T. (2011). Does voluntary adoption of a clawback provision improve financial reporting quality? www.ssrn.com.

*      Demski, J.S. and G. Feltham. (1978). Economic incentives in budgetary control systems. Accounting Review April.

*      Eckel, C., M. McInnes, S. Solnick, J. Ensminger, R. G. Fryer, R. A. Heiner, G. Samms, K. Sieberg, and R.K. Wilson. (2005). Bobbing for widgets: Compensating wage differentials. Journal of Economic Education 36: 129–138.

*      Fehr, E. and A. Falk. (2002). Psychological foundation of incentives. European Economic Review 46: 687-724.

*      Feltham, G.A. and J. Xie. (1994). Performance-measure congruity and diversity in multitask principal-agent relations. The Accounting Review 69(3): 429-453.

*      Floersch, R (2009). The right way to determine executive pay. Wall Street Journal (March 5). Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621179473834577.html.

*      Frederickson, J., and W. Waller. (2005). Carrot or stick? Contract frame and use of decision-influencing information in a principal-agent setting. Journal of Accounting Research 43 (5): 709–733.

*      Fried, J., and S. Nitzan. (2011). Excess-pay clawbacks. Journal of Corporation Law 36: 722–751.

*      Hannan, R. L., V. B. Hoffman, and D. V. Moser. (2005). Bonus versus penalty: Does contract frame affect employee effort? Experimental Business Research 2: 151–169.

*      Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics 10:74-91.

*      Holmstrom, B. (1982). Moral hazard and teams. Bell Journal of Economics 13(2): 324-340.

*      Holmstrom, B., and P. Milgrom. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law Economics and Organization 7: 24–52.

*      Holt, C., and S. Laury. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review (Dec): 1644–1655.

*      Hossain, T., and J. List. (2009). The Behavioralist Visits the Factory: Increasing Productivity Using Simple Framing Manipulations. NBER Working Paper No. 15623. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15623.

*      Iskandar-Datta, M., and Jia, Y. (2013). Valuation consequences of clawback provisions. The Accounting Review 88 (1): 171-198.

*      Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics October: 305-360.

*      Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of choice under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.

*      Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323.

*      Kaplan, R., and A. Atkinson. (1998). Advanced Management Accounting. Third Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

*      Kube, S., M. A. Marechal, and C. Puppe. (2012). The currency of reciprocity: Gift exchange in the workplace. American Economic Review 102: 1644–1662.

*      Lazear, E. (1991). Labor economics and the psychology of organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 89–110.

*      Levine, C. B., and Smith, M. J. (2010). The relative efficiency of clawback provisions in compensation contracts. www.ssrn.com.

*      Lipe, M. (1993). Analyzing the variance investigations decision: The effects of outcomes, mental accounting, and framing. The Accounting Review 68: 748–764.

*      Luft, J. (1994). Bonus and penalty incentives. Contract choice by employees. Journal of Accounting and Economics 18: 181–206

*      Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts. (1992). Economics, Organizations and Management. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

*      Moreno, K., T. Kida, and J. F. Smith. (2002). The impact of affective reactions on risky decision making in accounting contexts. The Journal of Accounting Research 40 (5): 1331–1349.

*      Sawers, K., A. Wright, and V. Zamora. (2011). Does greater risk-bearing in stock option compensation reduce the influence of problem framing on managerial risk-taking? Behavioral Research in Accounting 23: 185–201.

*      Sullivan, K., and T. Kida. (1995). The effect of multiple reference points and prior gains and losses on managers’ risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64 (1): 76–83.

*      Thaler, R. H. (1980). Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1: 39-60.

*      Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106 (4): 1039–1061.

*      Van de Weghe, P., and W. Bruggeman. (2004). Bonus and penalty contract acceptance in a balancedscorecard environment: A case study. In Performance Measurement and Management Control 14: Superior -Organizational Performance, edited by Epstein, M. J., and J. Manzoni: 323–353. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

*      Young, S. M. and B. Lewis. (1995). Experimental incentive-contracting research in management accounting. In R.H. Ashton and A.H. Ashton, eds. Judgment and Decision-Making Research in Accounting and Auditing. U.K.: Cambridge University Press: 55-75.