Documents Sesil, James C. 3 results

"The United States has developed a varied and widespread employee ownership sector. This sector has two distinct sub-sectors, the public stock market and small privately-held firms. There is a significant gap in the incidence and development of employee ownership between the European Union (EU) and the US when both sectors are examined. Socioeconmic system differences between the EU and the US suggests that EU employee ownership will be more likely to develop if the EU expands citizen participation in its public stock markets and creates legislative support for selling smaller family businesses to employees. Second, US employee ownership is deficient in direct employee participation in corporate governance. If employees are to have reasonable rights to protect their investment risk, the US will have to converge with the EU in terms of its appreciation of the co-determination rights of workers. The development of employee ownership in the US can be better understood by appreciating the subtleties of how the argument that ownership causes superior performance of employee owned firms is presented. Most employee ownership firms will use the pull model of employee ownership where the firm never makes the extreme commitments of cultural transformation that are necessary to drive better corporate performance. We expect that the push model of employee ownership will continue to be the basis of a more "utopian" image of employee ownership. The pull model of employee ownership is based on the notion that the structure of compensation has changed in modern society and corporations are increasingly looking for ways to provide modest fix wage commitments and pay AFTER performance has taken place. The collapse of the fixed wage system plays a key role in the emergence of employee ownership in the US. Research on the wealth effects of employee ownership supports the perception that employee ownership firms are more generous. It is only this evidence that creates the basis of broad public support of the idea. This last observation helps explain why employee ownership has become so popular in the United States despite the fact that it violates a common precept of investment, namely, that a diversified basket of investments are the most rational market investment. Too much US employee ownership was "bogus employee ownership" based on workers purchasing stock with their savings. To the extent the EU wants to learn about employee ownership from the US, it should not imitate these mistakes."

"This paper compares the performance of 229 'New Economy' firms offering broad-based stock options to that of their non-stock option counterparts. A simple comparison of these firms reveals that the former have higher shareholder returns, Tobin's q and new knowledge generation. Multivariate analysis using panel data also suggests that the adoption of a stock option plan results in higher levels of value added per employee. However, we do not find evidence that these plans result in superior growth in Tobin's q or new knowledge generation."

"This article looks at the impact on establishment performance of using employee involvement and group incentives independently and in combination. These empirical questions are evaluated using establishment-level UK data from the Corporate Performance Project sponsored by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. The findings indicate an insignificant effect when task control is transferred in isolation, and a (mostly) insignificant effect when residual return rights are used alone. However, the findings indicate a positive and significant effect on performance when control and return rights are shared together."