According to a new study of company leaders, CEOs tend to approach business risks more prudently when compensated with material pay packages as a larger percentage of overall compensation, instead of a heavy dose of stock options.

From one point of view, this makes little sense: Many (many) executives perform just to the point of making stock prices rise quarter after quarter. After all, would you want to buy options with cheap strike prices only to sell them later for massive profit -- company long-term performance be damned? Due to the greedy nature of many CEOs, this situation seems head-on. The only problem here is that this study refutes that belief.

It concluded that CEOs who are granted large numbers of stock options as a main form of compensation are more likely to make riskier decisions with often negative repercussions on company stock prices. This also makes sense: With more stock options on the table, the risk-taker mentality may come out more for leaders-- who ascend to their positions usually by taking risks in the first place.

The only problem is that most of those risks end in bitter disappointments instead of glowing results. Although stock options are geared toward motivating executives and middle managers to improve a company's future performance, the study's authors argue that that form of compensation is not all that effective in increasing a company's overall results. Moral of the story: liberal stock option granting is a good idea, but just don't overload comp packages with them.