224. Is benchmarking a sensible way to set CEO pay?

This season, every episode of OMG focuses on a question that directors really need to answer.
OMG is written, produced, narrated and scored by Matt Fullbrook.
 
TRANSCRIPT:
Question #22: Is benchmarking a sensible way to set CEO pay? If you haven’t listened to the previous episode about knowing whether your CEO is doing an awesome job or not, you might want to take a sec and do that. A very large proportion of organizations I meet, and probably 99% of listed companies in the Western world all set their CEO’s compensation amount and structure in large part based on comparisons to their peers, also known as “benchmarking”. This makes sense if you believe that the most important part of CEO compensation is to avoid having your CEO quit and leave for another organization that pays better. The thing is, we have no idea how low a CEO’s pay would have to go before they might quit. And if we combine that with the stuff from the previous episode about how hard it is to know whether a CEO is any good or not, then we’re left with an important question. The one that’s the subject of today’s episode. One of the main problems with basing CEO pay on benchmarking is that it causes CEO pay to increase rapidly from a starting point that was already unjustifiably high. But even if we don’t care too much about the amount, benchmarking also lets boards off the hook of thinking too hard about what truly effective compensation really looks like. I promise you the answer to that question is not “effective compensation for our CEO looks like whatever everyone else is doing.” So, is benchmarking really a sensible way to set CEO pay?