The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing Managerial Power Theory: A Meta-Analytic Approach to Understanding the Determinants of CEO Compensation
Open accessAbstract
Although studies about the determinants of CEO compensation are ubiquitous, the balance of evidence for one of the more controversial theoretical approaches, managerial power theory, remains inconclusive. The authors provide a meta-analysis of 219 U.S.-based studies, focusing on the relationships between indicators of managerial power and levels of CEO compensation and CEO pay-performance sensitivities. The results indicate that managerial power theory is well equipped for predicting core compensation variables such as total cash and total compensation but less so for predicting the sensitivity of pay to performance. In most situations where CEOs are expected to have power over the pay setting process, they receive significantly higher levels of total cash and total compensation. In contrast, where boards are expected to have more power, CEOs receive lower total cash and total compensation. In addition, powerful directors also appear to be able to establish tighter links between CEO compensation and firm performance and can accomplish this even in the face of powerful CEOs. The authors discuss the implications for theory and research regarding the determinants of executive compensation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Survey of Corporate Governance
Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x · Cited by 16,243
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation
Finkelstein, S. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256485 · Cited by 2,389
Cited by
Greckhamer, T. (2016) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2370 · Cited by 403
Top management: the missing stakeholder in the HRM literature
Boada-Cuerva, M., Trullen, J., & Valverde, M. (2019) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2018.1479878 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- van Essen, M., Otten, J., & Carberry, E. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-01-05
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 164-202
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2142117607
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 57.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing Managerial Power Theory: A Meta-Analytic Approach to Understanding the Determinants of CEO Compensation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0149206311429378
- The paper
- van Essen, M., Otten, J., & Carberry, E. J. (2015). Assessing Managerial Power Theory: A Meta-Analytic Approach to Understanding the Determinants of CEO Compensation. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311429378
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
