1991
DOI: 10.1257/jep.5.2.45
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Incentives in Principal-Agent Relationships

Abstract: This article identifies some of the major issues that have been examined in the literature on incentives. The article begins by discussing the frictions that lie at the heart of incentive problems. Next, the principal's optimal response to these frictions is explored, taking as given the characteristics of the agents with whom the principal interacts in a nonrepeated setting. The design of individualized contracts, contests, and tournaments is analyzed. Then, the principal's task of selecting the best agent is… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
273
1
25

Year Published

1999
1999
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 642 publications
(302 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
3
273
1
25
Order By: Relevance
“…6 As Rushmore and Baum (2001) discuss, it is very costly for a parent company to monitor individual hotels under franchise agreements. The principal-agent problem that arises between franchisors and franchisees has been explored in past research on the hotel industry (Michael 2000;Kosová, Lafontaine, and Perrigot 2010) and in many other contexts (Caves and Murphy 1976, Rubin 1978, Mathewson and Winter 1985, Holmstrom and Milgrom 1991, Sappington 1991. In this study, we focus not on agency problems that arise in the franchisor-franchisee relationship, but rather on agency problems that arise due to the more limited supervision of employees in company managed hotels (i.e., those under management contract and those that are company owned and operated) relative to franchised hotels.…”
Section: A Ownership and Management Structure In The Hotel Industrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6 As Rushmore and Baum (2001) discuss, it is very costly for a parent company to monitor individual hotels under franchise agreements. The principal-agent problem that arises between franchisors and franchisees has been explored in past research on the hotel industry (Michael 2000;Kosová, Lafontaine, and Perrigot 2010) and in many other contexts (Caves and Murphy 1976, Rubin 1978, Mathewson and Winter 1985, Holmstrom and Milgrom 1991, Sappington 1991. In this study, we focus not on agency problems that arise in the franchisor-franchisee relationship, but rather on agency problems that arise due to the more limited supervision of employees in company managed hotels (i.e., those under management contract and those that are company owned and operated) relative to franchised hotels.…”
Section: A Ownership and Management Structure In The Hotel Industrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our findings are broadly in line with agencytheoretic approaches to the cascading set of principal-agent relationships in organizations. Classical agency perspectives focus on the relationship between managers (as agents) and "distant" shareholders (as principals) (Berle and Means 1932;Eisenhardt 1989;Sappington 1991). From the perspective of the latter group, close ties among the members of the former provide opportunities for collusive behavior and make it harder to monitor managers on an individual basis (Daily and Schwenk 1996;Ocasio 1994).…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A CEO may groom a manager with whom they have a close relationship as a potential successor or provide other opportunities for career advancement (Adler and Kwon 2002). From the (Eisenhardt 1989;Sappington 1991), interpersonal ties may help prevent the emergence of problems such as opportunistic behavior, private benefit seeking, and others typically found in the relationship between the CEO and other TMT members (Cruz, Gomez-Mejia, and Becerra 2010;Hermalin and Weisbach 1998). Likewise, strong interpersonal ties may also limit possible scapegoating behavior prompted by the CEO, as sacrificing an affiliated executive is likely to be perceived as an acknowledgement of the duo's fault (Khanna and Poulsen 1995).…”
Section: 1mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• Lack of experience and expertise of the client with contract management [13,17] • Measurement problems [1,8] • Lack of experience and expertise of the supplier with the activity [13] Loss of organizational competencies [12,13,16,27] Factors leading to outcome :…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%