Adam J. Wowak

Who's the new kid? The process of developing centrality in venture capitalist deal networks

In this chapter we examine the process by which new firms become central actors within their industry networks. We focus, in particular, on how relatively new venture capital (VC) firms become more central within investment syndication networks. We present a model that captures the relationships among (1) the social capital and status of the new VC firms founders, (2) the VC firms resource endowments, (3) the VC firms ability to forge relationships with other prestigious and central venture capital firms, (4) the visibility-enhancing performance of portfolio firms, and (5) the urgency and effort exhibited by the new VC as it pursues these opportunities. These factors combine to shape a new VCs journey from the periphery to the center of its industry network. To illustrate these processes, we develop in-depth case studies of Benchmark Capital and August Capital, two VC firms founded in 1995. We then elaborate upon the enacted nature of resource and opportunity constraints and conclude with a discussion of how new firms create their own self-fulfilling prophecies.

The Elephant (or Donkey) in the Boardroom How Board Political Ideology Affects CEO Pay

We examine how directors’ political ideologies, specifically the board-level average of how conservative or liberal directors are, influence boards’ decisions about CEO compensation. Integrating research on corporate governance and political psychology, we theorize that conservative and liberal boards will differ in their prevailing beliefs about the appropriate amounts CEOs should be paid and, relatedly, the extent to which CEOs should be rewarded or penalized for recent firm performance. Using a donation-based index to measure the political ideologies of directors serving on S&P 1500 company boards, we test our ideas on a sample of over 4,000 CEOs from 1998 to 2013. Consistent with our predictions, we show that conservative boards pay CEOs more than liberal boards and that the relationship between recent firm performance and CEO pay is stronger for conservative boards than for liberal boards. We further demonstrate that these relationships are more pronounced when focusing specifically on the directors most heavily involved in designing CEO pay plans—members of compensation committees. By showing that board ideology manifests in CEO pay, we offer an initial demonstration of the potentially wide-ranging implications of political ideology for how corporations are governed.

Do CEOs receive the pay they deserve? A new vantage on a familiar question

Purpose This paper aims to explore the implications of Aguinis and colleagues’ study, and in particular their claim that the inconsistency between chief executive officer (CEO) pay and CEO performance is reflective of a fundamental injustice. In doing so, the authors highlight issues regarding the meaning of fairness in the context of CEO pay, the extent to which CEOs can personally affect firm performance and the challenges in ascertaining whether CEOs are overpaid, underpaid or appropriately paid. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a conceptual approach, integrating research on executive compensation and managerial discretion to lend nuance to Aguinis and colleagues’ arguments and findings. Findings The main takeaway of the commentary is that CEO pay fairness is a complex and multifaceted matter that can be difficult to broadly characterize. The evidence offered by Aguinis and colleagues regarding power law distributions and the weak overlap between CEO pay and CEO performance is compelling, but questions about income inequality and pay fairness rarely lend themselves to straightforward answers. Some caution is thus warranted when evaluating Aguinis and colleagues’ conclusion that the US CEO labor market is pervasively unfair. Originality/value The authors urge scholars who build on the work of Aguinis and colleagues to pay heed to the challenges in reconciling the twin concepts of CEO pay and CEO performance.