Experimental Evidence for Agency Models of Salesforce Compensation

Experimental Evidence for Agency Models of Salesforce Compensation

Academic work on sales compensation plans features agency models prominently, and these models have also been used to build decision aids for managers. However, empirical support remains sketchy. We conducted three experiments to investigate three unresolved predictions involving the incentive-insur...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Marketing Science. - Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. - 19(2000), 4, Seite 348-365
1. Verfasser: Ghosh, Mrinal (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: John, George
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2000
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Marketing Science
Schlagworte:Experimental Economics Agency Theory Sales Compensation Salesforce Business Economics Behavioral sciences Applied sciences Philosophy
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 JST056341016
003 DE-627
005 20240622022525.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 150324s2000 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)JST056341016 
035 |a (JST)193266 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Ghosh, Mrinal  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Experimental Evidence for Agency Models of Salesforce Compensation 
264 1 |c 2000 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Academic work on sales compensation plans features agency models prominently, and these models have also been used to build decision aids for managers. However, empirical support remains sketchy. We conducted three experiments to investigate three unresolved predictions involving the incentive-insurance trade-off posited in the model. First, compensation should be less incentive loaded with greater effort-output uncertainty so as to provide additional insurance to a risk-averse agent. Second, flat wages should be used for verifiable effort so as to avoid unnecessary incentives. Third, less incentive-loaded plans should be used with more risk-averse agents so as to provide additional insurance. Our design implemented explicit solutions from a specific agency model, which offers greater internal validity, compared to extant laboratory designs that either did not implement explicit solutions or excluded certain parameters. In Experiment I, data from working manager subjects supported the first prediction but only when risk-averse agents undertook nonverifiable effort. We interpret this as disclosing the model's "core" circumstance, wherein it orders the data when the incentive-insurance trade-off is relevant. Thus, when verifiable effort made incentives moot, as is the case for the second prediction, the model failed to order the data. Building on these results, we reasoned that the third prediction should find support among risk-averse agents but not among risk-neutral agents, because insurance is a moot point with the latter agents. To this end, we added risk-neutral utility functions for agents in Experiment II. Data from MBA-candidate student subjects supported the predictions, but only when risk-averse agents undertook nonverifiable effort. In those cells in which the incentive-insurance trade-off was moot (either because of risk-neutrality or else verifiability), the data did not support the predictions. We confronted several validity threats to these results. To begin, Experiment I used the standard agency solution, which equalizes an agent's expected utility from the predicted plan with his expected utility from rejecting it. Subjects might have broken these ties on such grounds as fairness. To assess whether this confounded the results, we derived new solutions in Experiment II that broke ties in favor of the predicted plan (by a 10% margin in the expected utility). Our results were robust to this change. Second, our agents' behavior in Experiments I and II was much more consistent with predictions, compared to the principals' behavior, which brought up task comprehension as a validity threat because our principals faced a more complex experimental task than the agents. To address this threat, we used three decision rounds in Experiment III to reduce the principals' task comprehension problems. A related validity threat arose from the relatively small gap in some cells between a principal's predicted expected utility and the principal's next best choice. To address this threat, we derived new solutions with larger gaps to make the principal's choices "easier." The results were again robust to these changes, which removes these validity threats. We also addressed two alternative explanations. Might principals be predisposed to pick salary plus commission plans regardless of the model's predictions? If so, we should find such plans chosen uniformly across different experimental conditions. Pooling the data from our three experiments, we rejected this predisposition explanation by finding variation that was more consistent with treatment differences across cells. Second, might agents choose higher effort levels because of a demand bias? If so, we should find agents picking high effort regardless of the plan actually offered to them. Using pooled data, we rejected this explanation by finding variation that was more consistent with a utility-maximizing reaction to the plan actually offered to them. Finally, we included manipulation checks to assess whether principals and agents perceived experimental stimuli identically, as per the "common knowledge" assumption in game theory. These data showed no differences between agents' and principals' perceptions of stimuli. Our experiments move the literature from simply asking whether the model works to pinpointing the circumstances in which it orders behavior. The primary stylized fact we uncovered is the persistent and striking lack of support for the agency model outside of the circumstance in which risk-averse agents undertake nonverifiable effort. The model's failure when there is no material insurance-incentive trade-off deserves scrutiny in future work. 
540 |a Copyright 2000 Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences 
650 4 |a Experimental Economics 
650 4 |a Agency Theory 
650 4 |a Sales Compensation 
650 4 |a Salesforce 
650 4 |a Business  |x Business administration  |x Corporate communications  |x External corporate communications  |x Marketing 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Microeconomics  |x Economic utility  |x Expected utility 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Economic disciplines  |x Financial economics  |x Finance  |x Financial analysis  |x Risk management  |x Risk preferences 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Microeconomics  |x Economic utility  |x Utility functions 
650 4 |a Business  |x Business administration  |x Human resources  |x Employee motivation  |x Productivity incentives  |x Incentive plans 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Social psychology  |x Interpersonal relations  |x Dyadic relations 
650 4 |a Applied sciences  |x Research methods  |x Modeling 
650 4 |a Philosophy  |x Metaphilosophy  |x Western philosophy  |x American philosophy  |x Analytic philosophy  |x Logical positivism  |x Verifiability 
650 4 |a Philosophy  |x Applied philosophy  |x Philosophy of science  |x Scientific method  |x Experimentation  |x Experiment design 
650 4 |a Philosophy  |x Applied philosophy  |x Philosophy of science  |x Scientific method  |x Hypothesis testing  |x Null hypothesis 
655 4 |a research-article 
700 1 |a John, George  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Marketing Science  |d Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences  |g 19(2000), 4, Seite 348-365  |w (DE-627)320627799  |w (DE-600)2023536-7  |x 1526548X  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:19  |g year:2000  |g number:4  |g pages:348-365 
856 4 0 |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/193266  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_JST 
912 |a GBV_ILN_11 
912 |a GBV_ILN_20 
912 |a GBV_ILN_22 
912 |a GBV_ILN_23 
912 |a GBV_ILN_24 
912 |a GBV_ILN_31 
912 |a GBV_ILN_32 
912 |a GBV_ILN_39 
912 |a GBV_ILN_40 
912 |a GBV_ILN_60 
912 |a GBV_ILN_62 
912 |a GBV_ILN_63 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_69 
912 |a GBV_ILN_70 
912 |a GBV_ILN_90 
912 |a GBV_ILN_95 
912 |a GBV_ILN_100 
912 |a GBV_ILN_110 
912 |a GBV_ILN_120 
912 |a GBV_ILN_152 
912 |a GBV_ILN_187 
912 |a GBV_ILN_224 
912 |a GBV_ILN_285 
912 |a GBV_ILN_374 
912 |a GBV_ILN_702 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2001 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2003 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2005 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2006 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2007 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2008 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2009 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2010 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2011 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2014 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2015 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2018 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2020 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2021 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2026 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2034 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2044 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2048 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2050 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2055 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2056 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2057 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2059 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2061 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2065 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2068 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2106 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2107 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2108 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2111 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2113 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2118 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2122 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2129 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2143 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2147 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2148 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2152 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2153 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2190 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2232 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2472 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2935 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2940 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2949 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2950 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4035 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4037 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4046 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4125 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4126 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4242 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4246 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4249 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4251 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4305 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4306 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4307 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4313 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4322 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4323 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4324 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4325 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4326 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4335 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4338 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4346 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4393 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4700 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 19  |j 2000  |e 4  |h 348-365