The Effectiveness of Stock Option Plans
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite Stock Option Plans' (SOPs) widespread use, evidence regarding their use and their effectiveness is relatively sparse and typically relies on an agency theory perspective that emphasizes the principal's interests in a market context. This study focuses on the agent as an individual who is involved in SOP management. Eighteen interviews with senior executives were conducted. Their responses indicate that SOPs are used to (a) initially align management's incentives, (b) attract and retain key personnel, and (c)facilitate the payment of high levels of executive compensation. SOPs are successful when they are paid to employees whose actions influence stock prices. Our analysis suggests that no single theory provides a comprehensive explanation of SOP management. A critical assessment of agency theory as the dominant paradigm in executive compensation research and practice is presented, and the need for an integrated theoretical perspective for understanding SOPs is discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it