Jim Heim, a managing director at Pearl Meyer, says in a statement, “For more than two decades, the traditional 'sweet spot' for executive salary increases was 3 percent to 5 percent annually—now companies are trying levels more directly to annual performance by holding salaries flat or even cutting poor years and making bumps of 5 percent to 10 percent in strong years.”

But the survey, says Meyer, is not reflective of the insurance industry as few in that sector responded.

John Gayley, a director at Towers Watson, heading up the insurance compensation practice for the firm, says for years now the boards of insurance companies have based CEO compensation on performance and have not given automatic pay increases.

While the PMP survey says the CEO compensation increases have ranged in the 3 to 5 percent range, insurers have been less generous to their CEOs, says Gayley.

Before the Great Recession hit in 2008, he says boards were rewarding their CEOs with increases on the lower end of the range, closer to 3 percent. He adds that, typically, boards have scrutinized those increases asking, “Is this appropriate?”

Gayley notes, though, that insurers are not cutting their executives' salaries, as other sectors are now doing according to the PMP survey.

When it comes to evaluating the executives, Gayley points out that due to the cyclicality of the insurance industry, boards look closely at performance beyond the balance sheet, weighing such factors as chief-executive decisions, company stability and economic conditions that can affect performance.

“It is continuing evidence of what has been a long pattern in financial services, as well as insurance, to demonstrate that boards are taking a closer look at performance and weaving that into each and every pay decision they make about senior executives' pay,” says Gayley

He explains that the PMP study shows there is now more emphasis on documenting pay decisions and making sure the board has the right information to make the right decision when it comes to compensation.

“Financial services, of which insurance is a part, has had to do that more so than others by virtue of the spotlight that has been on executive pay within financial services,” says Gayley. “They have probably been at greater pains recently to make sure that everything that they say about the decision process is well documented and that the evidence on which the decisions are made are very clearly laid out and that they have enough information to make what they feel is an appropriate decision.”

This is something that is true not only of the public companies, but also mutual companies “that hold themselves to pretty high standards.”

Concerning stock-incentive awards, Gayley says that because insurance regulators are so keen on companies avoiding compensation incentives that may lead to poor decision-making, the use of stock options has diminished over the past five years.

However, they are not going away, because they do focus executives' decisions on stock performance, he says. The awards that are given to executives focus on long-term growth over a multi-year period.