Discussion of Hallock paper on reciprocal interlocks
My approach to papers on matters such as board of directors interlocks proceeds partially from my position as an adjunct professor but mostly from the vantage point of a full time practitioner who, among other things, advises boards on the reasonableness of executive pay. I view such scholarship from three perspectives. First, in the search for the truth that is the subject of the paper, I apply the classical scholarly model; do the approaches taken have the requisite intellectual rigour, was the sample well chosen, is the statistical analysis persuasive, etc. In this respect, apart from some methodological issues developed below, I believe Professor Hallock’s analysis is generally persuasive. My second perspective is a policy one. Since we deal here with a real world phenomenon, does the paper develop insights that might be useful at a policy level? Do its findings argue for a need for legislative, administrative or judicial reform? In my view, Professor Hallock’s conclusions suggest no need for such reform. Finally, as a practitioner, might the paper’s findings allow me to bring new insights to my clients or cause me to modify the kind of advice I give them on the matters that are the subject of the paper? In this instance too, I believe the answer is no.
KeywordsExecutive Compensation Total Compensation Adjunct Professor Real World Phenomenon Compensation Committee
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.