AIG’s predominate problem was that their corporate structure was “pay for performance” but did not allow the executives to have a downside if the risk they took did not pay off. AIG’s system did not reinforce the company’s core values, enhance cohesion and commitment to the goals and objectives of the company, and meet with the organizations overall mission and purpose. This “pay for performance” compensation system also seems to have driven the corporate culture to one in which the name of the game was to look out for yourself, rather than the interest of the firm. In order to address this, I recommend AIG do the following:
Haven’t found the relevant content?
Hire a subject expert to help you with American International Group and the Bonus Fiasco
Hire verified expert
Compensation should be linked to drive the Company and Individual Performance.
A balance should be reached between Short-Term and Long-Term performance Demands. Incentive compensation should be linked to Company results over the fiscal year. The compensation should be slowly paid as long-term awards that are linked to multi-year performance.
Retention of Key Talent, but Protect the Companies Interest. This could be accomplished by including cancellations provisions for bonuses in the employment contracts if the employee leaves for a competitor. Further a claw back provision if the person engages in conduct that is harmful to the company in some way.
Eliminate controversial compensation practices that do not appear to be fair and are simply “pay for performance.”
Ensure board oversight and governance of the compensation scheme.
Increase shareholder say in compensation of executives
Ensure transparency in compensation practices and methods of communication between the board and shareholders regarding these practices.