The principal-agent problem occurs when one party is given the right or authority to make decisions that impact the principal. Most often, the principal puts the agent is a position wherein conflict arises due to a non-alignment in objectives of the two people. With today's changing team structures and more dynamic work, the model can be better optimized to reflect a triangular structure, one where an agent deals with multiple principals. This is very much true in today's circumstances where there are more channels of control than just a single manager or principal.
A simple principal-agent problem that I have witnessed and been involved with is during consulting work for the on-campus organization OTCR consulting, there is often problems is how to handle the work. As the consultants ourselves we are the agents, and have a few different principles. Firstly, the client who is paying us and expects a job to be done is our primary principal, but then is also the firm itself and the managers and partners within OTCR who are principles as well. This dual principle nature often leads to greater problems. As the principals objectives are different, they both expect different outcomes. In this situation, both principles wanted good quality from the agents, but there were still differences which led to problems. The firm wants us to act and perform the tasks as per the contract and statement of work. The client on the other hand, as the scope changed wanted different information and analysis. Thus the specific duty changed as per one of our principal's wishes. Other dissimilarities in objectives that would arise are timing vs quality of work, etc. Of course as with principal-agent problem, the main problem arises from the agent themselves, thus the agent or consultant in this case, would differ in objectives and thus maybe not work as hard or efficiently if they were the principals. Although here, the client would be the more important principal it would depend on situation to situation. I think wherever there are multiple principals, the one that is the bigger customer would be the principal and the agent should try satisfying both, but should prioritize one depending on what they seem fit. There are certainly multiple ways to solving the problem, depending on each situation. Of the best methods to solve this problem would be to bring both principles together and mutually decide on a solution that the agent should work towards. This should ensure that that the agent works in accordance with both principles. A contract or written document prior to starting said work would greatly help in establishing the guidlines and what each party should expect out of the transaction. If the agent satisfies one principal, they can certainly ignore the other or worse, perform opposite to what the second principal wanted. For example, if the Client wanted to promote advertising and brand recognition and asked OTCR to spearhead its marketing efforts. If this was an arbitrary target we had to reach without any measurable data(such as viewers or users) and OTCR wanted us to keep our budget and expenses low. As agents we could spend less in advertising material thus doing a good job according to principal managers of OTCR but would not do too well from the clients perspective of spreading the brand name. |
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Principal Agent Problem
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just on your use of language - client is some company from the private sector that hires a team of student consultants, while the firm is OTCR. Is that right?
ReplyDeleteOne of the issues with any project is that there is learning by doing. A statement of work might be drawn up early on, when the parties don't know that much about the project. Then there is learning. This can affect not just how to get the project done, but also what is desirable to get done. The statement of work can, at best, anticipate some of this learning by doing, but not a lot of it. It's the unanticipated part that can lead to the triangle.
In an ongoing relationship the give and take can be handled in such a way as to keep everyone pretty much happy. This is one of the reasons why I've emphasized gift exchange in the course. It helps to deal with those unanticipated contingencies. In a short term relationship things are much different. The firm will say that changes the client wants are really out of scope. They could renegotiate at that point and come to a new contract. But that is costly too. So sometimes they just live with the old contract. This is when the agent feels that he is being tugged in different directions.
Yes, that is correct. Our clients normally are smaller companies, and we specialize in technology consulting, thus many clients are in that industry.
DeleteThe unanticipated part definitely does cause more tension and is what leads to the triangle. Often times this uncertainty cannot be reduced through prior actions such as a statement of work as the work and business needs of the clients can and do change.
Short term relations also have the added liberty of not doing as great a job since they most likely will never be used again. However in situations where the there is an ongoing relationship the people will try and do well so that the business relation is not strained and that also leads to the work being more fluid and dynamic in nature.
I can see how consulting would be a great example of a triangular principal agent problem as you are directly in-between a customer and a firm (similar to the law firm example given in the prompt). I can also see how at times it could be difficult if the client and OTCR have conflicting views.
ReplyDeleteTo my limited knowledge, I would assume consultants would side with their firms entirely. While a consultant may care for their client, in the end the firm is the one that sign their paycheck and sets the rules. Like Professor Arvan mentioned - an ongoing relationship may be different as a firm or consultant may be more flexible as a result of loyalty.
Yes, a consulting firm has many parallels with a law firm in how the work is structured, the client relationship and the team organizations and hierarchy.
DeleteThus a consultant team reports to two set of parties, one the client who is paying for their work and the other being the management of the firm itself, thus arising to a dual principal - agent problem.
You are certainly correct in assuming that a consultant would follow and side with their firms as they represent and are employed by the firm itself. However a problem arises, as the clients needs are important. They are the people who pay and it is for them that the work is being done. Thus if the client and firm have opposing views then the consultant would have a principal-agent problem on his or her hands in deciding which entity, the firm or client to put first.
Certainly, we once had this client who was demanding too much work from us. The work he wanted us to do was beyond our initial agreement and would have exceeded the timeframe we operate in. Thus, in the middle we had to renegotiate and concentrate on the work that most urgent to the client. In most cases the client should come first, especially in an industry such as consulting where each solution in unique to the client, thus to resolve such problems we take the clients questions and factor in our work capabilities to provide a solution that both parties are happy with.
ReplyDelete