The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reframing Execufive Compensation: An Assessment and Outlook
Abstract
This article develops and applies a new framework for under standing and interpreting the breadth of executive compensation research and theory. This framework sorts the literature along three dimensions that reflect three basic issues in compensation design: how to pay (specifying the mechanism for linking pay criteria to pay consequences), when to pay (specifying the criteria for awarding pay), and what to pay (form of pay consequence). This framework helps to highlight areas where executive compensation research has stalled, areas it has ignored, as well as providing direction for re-energizing the field by outlining questions for future research and theory building.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage
Barney, J. (1991) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639101700108 · Cited by 48,334
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process
Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1978.4305755 · Cited by 4,527
Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation
Finkelstein, S. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256485 · Cited by 2,389
Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action
Staw, B. M. (1976) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2 · Cited by 2,061 · cited 3×
“Some of the issues that may be examined in this context include the presence of group think (Janis, 1982), escalation of commitment to the CEO (Staw, 1976; Miller 8z Gomez-Mejia, 1996), risky shif (Bettenhausen, 1991), diversity of board members (Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly, 1995), power/political…”
Background
Cited by
Greckhamer, T. (2016) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2370 · Cited by 403
Metadata
- Authors
- Gomez-Mejia, L., & Wiseman, R. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 291-374
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2055295580
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 52.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Reframing Execufive Compensation: An Assessment and Outlook. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/014920639702300304
- The paper
- Gomez-Mejia, L., & Wiseman, R. M. (1997). Reframing Execufive Compensation: An Assessment and Outlook. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300304
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.
