Incentive Contracting Under Limited Liability

We examine the nature of incentive schemes between the principal and the risk-neutral agent in the presence of the agent's limited liability and ex ante action choice. We consider alternative schemes when a simple rental contract is infeasible due to the limited liability of the agent and study the effectiveness of a performance bonus scheme in achieving the first-best outcome. We also discuss some implications of such schemes in real practices.     

Altruism and Relational Incentives in the Workplace

This paper studies how altruism between managers and employees affects relational incentive contracts. To this end, we develop a simple dynamic principal–agent model where both players may have feelings of altruism or spite toward each other. The contract may contain two types of incentives for the agent to work hard: a bonus and a threat of dismissal. We find that altruism undermines the credibility of a threat of dismissal but strengthens the credibility of a bonus. Among others, these two mechanisms imply that higher altruism sometimes leads to higher bonuses, whereas lower altruism may increase productivity and players' utility in equilibrium.     

Fairness in Delegated Bargaining

This article examines whether a principal prefers to hire a fair or a selfish agent. A fair agent cares to some extent for the well-being of other people and thus he also cares for the principal. Therefore, if the agent performs individual work, the principal is always better off to hire a fair agent. However, we show that when a third party with conflicting interests is introduced, it may be advantageous for the principal to hire a selfish agent. The reason is that the selfish agent will be a tough bargainer not only when negotiating his employment contract with the principal but also when dealing with the third party, for example, when selling the principal's product to a buyer.     

Targets and Resources: A Screening Perspective

To secure funding for a project, an agent (informed about the project's type) announces a target output. The principal provides more generous resources for high targets but makes compensation tied to performance relative to the projection. The incentive mechanism is geared towards screening project/agent types for resource disbursement at the ex‐ante stage and motivating appropriate efforts at the interim stage. These dual objectives are embedded in an optimal share contract solution: a pair of startup funds and output share between the principal and agent. The target mechanism's performance is then assessed with respect to implementation of the optimal share contract solution. The focus is on linear contracts for their applicability and practical relevance. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The hidden costs of control revisited: Should a sanctioning policy be announced in advance?

Sanctions are widely used to enhance compliance in principal agent relationships. Although there is ample evidence confirming the predicted positive incentive effect of sanctions, it has also been shown that imposing sanctions may reduce compliance by crowding out intrinsic motivation. We add to the literature on the hidden costs of control by showing that these costs are restricted to situations where the principal actively chooses to sanction low performance and where this choice is known to the agent. In such a situation, the principal's commitment to sanction low performance might indicate that she or he is a distrustful “type” and hence conveys a negative signal. To the contrary, if (a) an agent is not informed about whether low performance will be sanctioned or if (b) the computer determines whether low performance will be sanctioned, the principal's “type” is not revealed, and we find no evidence of crowding out.     

Task Assignmentand Agency Structures

This paper considers an agency model in which a principal delegates an agent authority to choose investment projects. The performance of the project depends stochastically on the agent's evaluation and operating efforts. The paper examines the conditions under which the principal prefers to assign production to a second agent. It is shown that the tasks will be assigned to two agents of the agent chooses an unobservable operating effort. The tasks will be assigned to one agent if the agent's evaluation and operating efforts are both unobservable and if disutilities of efforts are large relative to the profit from the risky project.     

On the impact of managerial bonus systems on firm profit and market competition: the cases of pure profit,sales, market share and relative profits compared

By designing remuneration schemes based on a bonus rewarding specific firm‐level outcomes, the owners/shareholders of a firm can manipulate the behavior of their managers. In practice, different bonus anchors take center stage: some are profit‐based, others use sales as the key yardstick and still different ones focus on relative performance vis‐à‐vis a peer group. In this paper, we focus on the impact of remuneration schemes on firm‐level profitability. The profit effect is investigated for (all possible combinations of) four bonus systems using delegation games. In the context of a linear Cournot model for two or three firms, we model a two‐ or three‐stage decision structure where, in the first stage (or first two stages), an owner decides on the bonus system for his manager and where, in the final stage, the manager takes the daily output decision for her firm. It appears that the bonus system based on relative (profits) performance is superior throughout. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Limited Liability and Bonus Contracts

This paper studies the nature of incentive contracts between a risk-neutral principal and a risk-neutral agent under the constraint that the agent's liability is limited. A necessary and sufficient condition is derived for the existence of a first-best contract under this constraint, and a bonus-based contract is shown to be the most efficient contractual form. Implications of bonus contracts are also discussed.     

Signaling and Efficiency in Gift Exchange: An Application to Tipping

In the gift exchange principal–agent game, other‐regarding preferences can be sufficient to support an efficient equilibrium with a strictly positive transfer. When the agent is uncertain about the altruism of the principal or the extent to which the principal adheres to social norms, however, he chooses a suboptimal level of effort to insure himself against unfair outcomes. I demonstrate that under certain conditions, a relatively simple change to the structure of the game allows the principal to costlessly signal his type and restores efficiency. I argue that this result has implications for the design of gratuity‐based service industries. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Informed principal and information gathering agent

We study a principal–agent model in which the principal has a production technology. The efficiency parameter of the principal’s technology is not known to the agent. Alternatively, the principal can make the agent use a technology from a different channel. By gathering information at a cost, the agent can be informed privately of the efficiency of the technology that he may acquire from another source. We find that the principal requires the agent to adopt the principal’s technology more (less) often when the cost of gathering information on the other technology is small (large). Also, with two states of nature, the outcome is first-best when the information gathering cost is intermediate.      

Stochastic costly state verification and dynamic contracts

I consider a dynamic costly state verification environment in which a risk-averse agent enters into a contract with a risk-neutral principal. The agent has random income which is unknown to the principal but can be verified at a cost. The principal can commit to executing random verifications.I extend the standard recursive methods to study the problem and show that it is optimal to set verification probabilities strictly less than 1. If the agent׳s absolute risk aversion declines sufficiently slowly, the principal will use verification regardless of its cost. If the agent's income is verified then he would get consumption and continuation utility strictly higher than if his income were not verified.     

Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard in Equity Partnerships: Evidence from Hollywood's Slate Financing Agreements

We use a movie industry project‐by‐project data set to analyze the principal–agent problem in slate financing arrangements. Under this specific film financing regime, which has become a significant mode of raising capital in Hollywood over the past decade, an external investor concludes a long‐term contract with a film producer and commits to cofinance a larger number of future film projects of that particular partner. In line with our theoretical conjectures, slate cofinanced movies receive poorer quality ratings and yield considerably lower return rates. Our data suggests that a substantial part of these performance differences may be attributed to adverse project selection and producer moral hazard.     

A study on the incentive compensation structure with payroll tax: A continuous-time principal-agent model

This paper studies a case when the government levies a payroll tax on the employee (agent) of an enterprise. We use a continuous-time principal-agent framework to analyze the impact of the tax on the employee’s working strategy and derive an incentive compensation scheme. The agent is supposed to be aware of his pre-tax and after-tax salary. Under the theory of behavioral economics, loss caused by taxation is taken into consideration. The Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation of principal’s profits is derived. By exploiting the HJB equation, we get several properties of the optimal contract. We also perform comparative statics to show our results. The model suggests that the agent’s utility loss enlarges as the tax rate increases. However, an increase in the tax rate does not always decrease principal’s profits.     

Peer Evaluation: Incentives and Coworker Relations

In many workplaces, coworkers have the best information about each other's efforts. This paper studies a principal who only observes the joint output by two limitedly liable agents, while agents receive signals about each other's effort levels. The principal attempts to exploit this information through peer evaluation; agents are asked to report their signal and may receive a bonus for being evaluated positively. Lying aversion ascertains that truthful evaluation is possible, while interpersonal relations between colleagues give an incentive to misreport. This paper shows that peer evaluation gives an incentive for effort, even when the evaluations are not truthful. The peer evaluation bonus is constrained by more intensive coworker relations. Still, the optimal contract always includes a peer evaluation bonus, sometimes complemented with a team bonus. Coworker relations have nonmonotonic effects on profits in the optimal contract.     

Team Incentives and Reference‐Dependent Preferences

We investigate a multi‐agent moral‐hazard model where agents have expectation‐based reference‐dependent preferences à la K?szegi and Rabin (2006, 2007). We show that even when each agent's probability of success in a project is independent, a principal may employ team incentives. Because the agents are loss averse, they have first‐order risk aversion to wage uncertainty. This causes the agents to work harder when their own failure is stochastically compensated through other agents' performance. In the optimal contract, agents with high performance are always rewarded, whereas agents with low performance are rewarded if and only if other agents' performance is high.     

Experienced and Novice Investors: Does Environmental Information Influence Investment Allocation Decisions?

Economic Value Added (EVA) is a performance measure that is being used by an increasing number of companies, but academic research on EVA is limited. In addition, all prior empirical academic studies on EVA have used the firm as the unit of analysis. In this study, we examine the effect of EVA on the performance of individual managers. Specifically, we examine whether managers on EVA-based bonus plans outperform managers on traditional accounting-based bonus plans. We are able to test this because we have access to an EVA-focused company that has managers on both EVA and traditional bonus plans. Our results suggest that managers on EVA bonus plans who understand the EVA concept perform better than managers on traditional bonus plans. However, we find some evidence that the increase in performance results from increased consistency or congruence in the manager's evaluation–reward process rather than from superiority of EVA as a performance measure. Also, we find that the effect of EVA bonuses and EVA understanding differs depending on the area of the firm in which the manager is employed. This suggests that EVA may not be a universally appropriate base for reward systems. *Mohan Lal passed away 24 July 2002. This paper is dedicated to him.     

A Mixed Contract with Alternative Performance Measures in a Multitask Agency

We compare the impact of two different mixed contracts on agent efforts when production depends on agent efforts at their own tasks as well as at helping others. The first contract combines compensation based on team output with that of a tournament where the bonus award is based on a ranking of individual output. The second contract also combines team output compensation with that of tournament except that the bonus award is based upon a relative ranking of an index constructed of alternative performance measures. We show that the latter contract can lead to higher levels of welfares than the former one. We also show that if the weights are properly constructed, the alternative contract can prompt agents into choosing first‐best levels of effort. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Information Management and Incentives

We ask how the incentives of an agent are affected by an information management system that lets the agent receive information about the performance of a colleague before (“transparent firm”) rather than after he provides effort (“nontransparent firm”). Transparency is detrimental for incentives if the performance of the colleague provides information on the relative impact of the agent’s effort on his success probability. The findings imply that firms in which comparisons between employees play a minor role for compensation are transparent. Firms in which they play a major role sometimes choose to be nontransparent despite the flexibility gains transparency provides.     

Promotion Tournaments and Individual Performance Pay

We analyze the optimal combination of promotion tournaments and linear individual performance pay in an employment relationship. An agent's effort is nonobservable and he has private information about his suitability for promotion. Thus, the two incentive schemes need to be combined to serve both incentive and selection purposes. If harder working agents respond less to intensified effort incentives, we find that the principal puts less emphasis on individual performance pay when selection becomes more important. Thus, we provide a possible explanation as to why, in practice, individual performance pay is less prevalent than promotion‐based incentives.     

An optimal-incentive contract for managers with exponential utility

This paper examines the manager–investor relationship in the case of exponential utility when the manager of investments in real or financial assets has an endowment which can be invested in the risky assets for which he has private information. We obtain a relationship showing trade-offs or hedging behavior among the investments the manager can choose for himself and the principal. Even with the hedging ability of the manager, the well-known first-best solution with ‘no moral hazard’ risk-sharing is obtained among these possible solutions to the manager's problem by specifying a ‘no conflict of interest’, zero investment by the manager of his own endowment in those risky assets for which he has private information. Thus, the agent imputes no disutility to the assignment of the principal's investments and the investor is assured of an investment strategy that he would make if he had access to the manager's private information.