Do Employees Cheer for Private Equity? The Heterogeneous Effects of Buyouts on Job Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We show that private equity leveraged buyouts reduce perceived job quality despite not impacting average base pay. This appears to reflect employees bearing more risk. Both job quality and employee incentive pay are more related to firm performance at private equity-owned companies than at public control firms with 1% higher deal rate of return associated with 0.7% more employee incentive pay. Deals with high leverage and employees with worse outside options fuel the declines in job satisfaction after a buyout. Our results highlight how job quality is tied to job security and how ownership affects employees through mechanisms beyond base pay. This paper was accepted by David Sraer, finance. Funding: W. Gornall thanks the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Development [Grant 430-2019-00306] for its support and gratefully acknowledges that this research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Excellence Research Chairs program awarded to Dr. Erik Snowberg in data-intensive methods in economics. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.00951 .
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".