Economic Theory

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 195–221 | Cite as

Contests to become CEO: incentives, selection and handicaps

  • Theofanis Tsoulouhas
  • Charles R. Knoeber
  • Anup Agrawal
Research Article


Should a firm favor insiders (handicap outsiders) when selecting a CEO? One reason to do so is to take advantage of the contest to become CEO as a device for providing current incentives to employees. An important reason not to do so is that this can reduce the ability of future CEOs and, hence, future profits. The trade-off between providing current incentives and selecting the most able individual to become CEO is the focus of this paper. If insiders are good enough (better or nearly as good as outsiders), incentive provision to insiders typically dominates and it is optimal to handicap outsiders, sometimes so severely that they have no chance to win the contest. However, if outsiders are sufficiently better than insiders, selection dominates and it is the insiders who are severely handicapped. This finding is in sharp contrast to the existing literature which has so far ignored this trade-off. In all, our model provides useful insight into contests to become CEO and rationalizes empirical regularities in the source of CEOs chosen by firms. In particular, our analysis helps to explain the lower tendency of firms in more heterogeneous industries and firms with a product or line of business organizational structure to select an outsider as CEO.


Contests CEO contracts Moral hazard 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aggarwal R.K., Samwick A.A. (2003). Performance incentives within firms: the effect of managerial responsibility. J Finance 58:1613–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A., Knoeber, C.R., Tsoulouhas, T.: Are outsiders handicapped in CEO successions? J Corp Finance (2005, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  3. Chan W. (1996). External recruitment versus internal promotion. J Labor Econ 14:555–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crémer J. (1980). A partial theory of the optimal organization of a bureaucracy. Bell J Econ 11:683–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faria J.R. (2000). An economic analysis of the Peter and Dilbert principles. Unpublished manuscript, University of Technology, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  6. Lazear E.P., Rosen S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. J Polit Econ 89:841–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lazear E.P. (2004). The Peter principle: a theory of decline. J Polit Econ 112:S141–S163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Miller G. (2005). Solutions to principal-agent problems in firms. In: Ménard C., Shirley M.M (eds). Handbook of new institutional economics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Nalebuff B.J., Stiglitz J.E. (1983). Prizes and incentives. Bell J Econ 14:21–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Parrino R. (1997). CEO turnover and outside succession: a cross-sectional analysis. J Financ Econ 46:165–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rosen S. (1986). Prizes and incentives in elimination tournaments. Am Econ Rev 76:701–715Google Scholar
  12. Skaperdas S. (1996). Contest success functions. Econ Theory 7:283–290Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theofanis Tsoulouhas
    • 1
  • Charles R. Knoeber
    • 1
  • Anup Agrawal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Culverhouse College of BusinessUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations