發表評論-汪翔-萬維博客-萬維讀者網（電腦版）

In a clear sign of its dissatisfaction with the direction of the company, the board of J. C. Penney gave its chief executive, Ron Johnson, a pay cut of almost 97 percent, to $1.9 million, for 2012, according to aregulatory filing on Tuesday.

In addition, not a single top executive received a cash bonus for the year.

“The C.E.O. is certainly being given a message,” said Kent Hughes, managing director at the proxy advisory firm Egan-Jones Ratings Company.

Analysts generally say they believe that Mr. Johnson will be given at least another couple of quarters to turn around the company he was hired a little more than a year ago to revive.

Since Mr. Johnson arrived in late 2011, J. C. Penney has wrestled with one problem after another. Mr. Johnson did away with discount sales, but revived them when it turned out customers liked sales. He proposed a three-tiered pricing strategy that he abandoned when customers were confused. He revamped the company’s advertising strategy to focus on lifestyle, not prices, but backtracked when it turned out customers wanted the ads to tell them how much items cost.

The company invested in Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and signed a deal to carry Ms. Stewart’s home products in its stores as the main attraction of a redesigned home department, but is now in the midst of a costly legal battle with Macy’s, which argues it has the exclusive right to Martha Stewart housewares. J. C. Penney plans to introduce the new home department this spring, featuring small boutiques devoted to brands like Jonathan Adler, Michael Graves and Martha Stewart.

For fiscal 2012, J. C. Penney lost more than $4 billion in sales as traffic declined. Its stock now trades at $14.55, less than half of its price when Mr. Johnson’s appointment was announced in June 2011. It had $13 billion in sales for fiscal 2012, well below its competitors Macy’s and Kohl’s.

Mr. Johnson had earned $53.3 million in total compensation in 2011 for the two months he served as chief executive. Most of the compensation was in stock to replace the stock he left behind at Apple, his former employer. In 2012, his total compensation was reduced to a $1.5 million salary, with no stock awards and no bonus. He was given about $345,000 for personal use of a corporate aircraft, $30,000 for a home security system, and $3,000 for information technology services, for a total of about $1.9 million.

According to the filing, Mr. Johnson’s target cash compensation was $3,375,000.

“There are a bunch of goose eggs there in every category except the one in perks, which is still limited,” Mr. Hughes said, adding that it was unusual for a chief executive who had been on board a short time to have such a low salary. While corporate governance advocates might object to the use of the aircraft, “it’s really the only thing he’s got, other than a small-by-modern-C.E.O.-standards cash salary,” he said.

Retail chief executives generally receive higher compensation than Mr. Johnson. At Kohl’s, which had a tough year, the chief executive Kevin Mansell received $7.8 million in compensation in 2012, about 80 percent of what he’d received the previous year, when Kohl’s posted better results. And Mr. Johnson’s predecessor at Penney, Myron E. Ullman III, received $13.1 million in compensation in 2010, his last full year as chief executive.

Michael W. Kramer, whom Mr. Johnson brought in as chief operating officer, received $33.4 million in total compensation in 2011. He received a little over $1 million in 2012.

And the chief talent officer, Daniel E. Walker, another of Mr. Johnson’s hires, who was given $20.2 million in 2011, in 2012 walked away with $731,385.

Only the two veterans among the top executives had compensation within similar ranges in 2011 and 2012. Michael P. Dastugue, the former chief financial officer who left in April 2012, got $3.1 million in 2012, and $4.3 million in 2011. Janet L. Dhillon, the general counsel, received $3.7 million in 2011, and $2.7 million in 2012.

But across the board, not a single bonus or nonstock incentive award was given to top executives in 2012.

Compensation experts said the board had reacted properly to the company’s dismal performance.

“Critics often argue that the C.E.O. has control over the board (and compensation committee) and so can extract high pay irrespective of firm performance, but this seems to be an example of pay being linked to performance,” Alex Edmans, an assistant professor of finance at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, said in an e-mail.

“Whether or not the current leadership team is what J. C. Penney needs right now in terms of skill sets and vision is a different matter,” said Camelia M. Kuhnen, an associate professor of finance at Kellogg. “But with respect to whether the board has the right incentives in place, the answer is yes.”

Penney declined to comment.