IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v17y1998i2p107-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monitoring and Incentives in Sales Organizations: An Agency-Theoretic Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Kissan Joseph

    (School of Business, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2003)

  • Alex Thevaranjan

    (School of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-2130)

Abstract

Our primary objective in this paper is to analyze a framework that simultaneously examines the role of monitoring and incentives in the design of sales force control systems. Previous research has focused exclusively on the role of incentives in directing salesforce effort. We build on the structure provided by the past work and analyze an agency-thoeretic model in which a salesperson generates wealth for the firm by expending effort across two dimensions, namely, internal and external. We assume that effort in the internal dimension can be monitored relatively cheaply whereas effort in the external dimension can be monitored only at infinite cost. We then analyze the following two scenarios: (i) a pure incentives world wherein both effort dimensions are governed through the use of incentive pay, and (ii) a monitoring and incentives world wherein the internal dimension is monitored and the external dimension is governed through the use of incentive pay. In addition to modeling the notion of partial monitoring in this manner, we also explicitly allow the firm to choose the level of risk aversion desired in its salesperson. Of course, salespeople who are relatively risk-tolerant command higher reservation wages; consequently, such salespeople are likely to be valuable only to those firms that emphasize incentive pay in their control systems. Our analysis across the two scenarios helps us to demonstrate the implications and value of introducing monitoring into the control structure. Specifically, we find that monitoring allows the firm to decrease the weight placed on incentives and hire a relatively risk-averse salesperson from the salesforce labor market. These actions, in turn, permit the firm to reduce the risk premium and the reservation wage offered to the salesperson. In direct contrast to these monetary savings, however, we find that an adverse side effect of monitoring is that it induces salespeople to overemphasize the effort devoted to the monitored dimension while underemphasizing the effort devoted to the nonmonitored dimension. This adverse effect of monitoring notwithstanding, we find that the overall benefit of increased monitoring is that it allows the firm to the amount of total compensation paid to the salesperson. These analytical findings are consistent with the prescriptions found in the popular business press where it is often stated that compensation plans that emphasize incentive pay are characterized by independence in managing activities (lack of monitoring) as well as high income potential. These findings are also consistent with the popular wisdom that incentive-laden compensation plans are generally more appropriate for individuals who are risk takers and entrepreneurial in nature. We also delineate the conditions where monitoring can improve on the profits obtained in a pure incentives world. Specifically, we find that monitoring can prove to be most valuable when the importance of internal activities is high and the level of incentives is low. Finally, we conclude by conducting a sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of our results to the specifications we utilize in our modeling efforts. Overall, we view the main contribution of our research efforts as one of explicitly delineating the tradeoffs associated with the use of monitoring and incentives in the design of salesforce control systems. As such, our paper should be of interest to academics and practitioners interested in the design of salesforce control systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Kissan Joseph & Alex Thevaranjan, 1998. "Monitoring and Incentives in Sales Organizations: An Agency-Theoretic Perspective," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 107-123.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:2:p:107-123
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.17.2.107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.2.107
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.17.2.107?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ross, Stephen A, 1973. "The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 134-139, May.
    2. John R. Hauser & Duncan I. Simester & Birger Wernerfelt, 1994. "Customer Satisfaction Incentives," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 327-350.
    3. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1987. "Aggregation and Linearity in the Provision of Intertemporal Incentives," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 303-328, March.
    4. Bengt Holmstrom, 1979. "Moral Hazard and Observability," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 74-91, Spring.
    5. Rajiv Lal & V. Srinivasan, 1993. "Compensation Plans for Single- and Multi-Product Salesforces: An Application of the Holmstrom-Milgrom Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(7), pages 777-793, July.
    6. Amiya K. Basu & Rajiv Lal & V. Srinivasan & Richard Staelin, 1985. "Salesforce Compensation Plans: An Agency Theoretic Perspective," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 267-291.
    7. Rajiv Lal & Richard Staelin, 1986. "Salesforce Compensation Plans in Environments with Asymmetric Information," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 179-198.
    8. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 1985. "Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 134-149, February.
    9. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Steenburgh, 2008. "Effort or timing: The effect of lump-sum bonuses," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 235-256, September.
    2. Sumitro Banerjee & Alex P. Thevaranjan, 2019. "Targeting and salesforce compensation: When sales spill over to unprofitable customers," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 81-104, March.
    3. Dhinu Srinivasan & Alex Thevaranjan, 2016. "The role of non-financial measures in controlling myopic activities: the case of hard selling," International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(2), pages 103-130.
    4. Munsaka, Eustensia, 2018. "The use of information sharing systems to address opportunistic behaviour between tomato farmers and brokers in Zambia," Research Theses 334750, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    5. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Mehmet Gümüş, 2018. "Quality at the Source or at the End? Managing Supplier Quality Under Information Asymmetry," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 498-516, July.
    6. Xiaoyang Long & Javad Nasiry, 2020. "Wage Transparency and Social Comparison in Sales Force Compensation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5290-5315, November.
    7. Fabio Caldieraro & Anne T. Coughlan, 2009. "Optimal Sales Force Diversification and Group Incentive Payments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1009-1026, 11-12.
    8. Cheng-Feng Cheng, 2012. "Evaluate the Effectiveness of Manager Compensation," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 11(1), pages 25-44, June.
    9. Jian Chen & He Huang & Liming Liu & Hongyan Xu, 2021. "Price Delegation or Not? The Effect of Heterogeneous Sales Agents," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(5), pages 1350-1364, May.
    10. Alex Thevaranjan & Kissan Joseph, 1999. "Incentives and job redesign: the case of the personal selling function," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 205-216.
    11. Fabio Caldieraro & Anne T. Coughlan, 2007. "Spiffed-Up Channels: The Role of Spiffs in Hierarchical Selling Organizations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 31-51, 01-02.
    12. Ajay Kalra & Mengze Shi & Kannan Srinivasan, 2003. "Salesforce Compensation Scheme and Consumer Inferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(5), pages 655-672, May.
    13. Roland Kassemeier & Sascha Alavi & Johannes Habel & Christian Schmitz, 2022. "Customer-oriented salespeople’s value creation and claiming in price negotiations," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 689-712, July.
    14. Rajiv Banker & Seok-Young Lee & Gordon Potter & Dhinu Srinivasan, 2010. "The impact of supervisory monitoring on high-end retail sales productivity," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 173(1), pages 25-37, January.
    15. Tat Y. Chan & Jia Li & Lamar Pierce, 2014. "Compensation and Peer Effects in Competing Sales Teams," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(8), pages 1965-1984, August.
    16. Sanjog Misra & Anne Coughlan & Chakravarthi Narasimhan, 2005. "Salesforce Compensation: An Analytical and Empirical Examination of the Agency Theoretic Approach," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 5-39, January.
    17. Frenzen, Heiko & Hansen, Ann-Kristin & Krafft, Manfred & Mantrala, Murali K. & Schmidt, Simone, 2010. "Delegation of pricing authority to the sales force: An agency-theoretic perspective of its determinants and impact on performance," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 58-68.
    18. Evrim D. Günec{s} & O. Zeynep Akc{s}in, 2004. "Value Creation in Service Delivery: Relating Market Segmentation, Incentives, and Operational Performance," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(4), pages 338-357, May.
    19. Murali Mantrala & Sönke Albers & Fabio Caldieraro & Ove Jensen & Kissan Joseph & Manfred Krafft & Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Srinath Gopalakrishna & Andris Zoltners & Rajiv Lal & Leonard Lodish, 2010. "Sales force modeling: State of the field and research agenda," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 255-272, September.
    20. Mrinal Ghosh & George John, 2000. "Experimental Evidence for Agency Models of Salesforce Compensation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 348-365, August.
    21. Stremersch, S. & Winer, R.S. & Camacho, N.M.A., 2020. "Faculty Research Incentives and Business School Health: A New Perspective from and for Marketing," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2020-013-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    22. Stremersch, S. & Winer, R.S. & Camacho, N.M.A., 2020. "Faculty Research Incentives and Business School Health: A New Perspective for Marketing," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2020-007-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    23. Yan Dong & Yuliang Yao & Tony Haitao Cui, 2011. "When Acquisition Spoils Retention: Direct Selling vs. Delegation Under CRM," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(7), pages 1288-1299, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Naresh Bansal & Kissan Bansal & Minghui Ma & M. Babajide Wintoki, 2017. "Do CMO Incentives Matter? An Empirical Investigation of CMO Compensation and Its Impact on Firm Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1993-2015, June.
    2. Arzum Akkaş & Nachiketa Sahoo, 2020. "Reducing Product Expiration by Aligning Salesforce Incentives: A Data‐driven Approach," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(8), pages 1992-2009, August.
    3. Fangruo Chen, 2000. "Sales-Force Incentives and Inventory Management," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 186-202, February.
    4. Olivier Rubel & Ashutosh Prasad, 2016. "Dynamic Incentives in Sales Force Compensation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 676-689, July.
    5. Fabio Caldieraro & Anne T. Coughlan, 2009. "Optimal Sales Force Diversification and Group Incentive Payments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1009-1026, 11-12.
    6. Fabio Caldieraro & Anne T. Coughlan, 2007. "Spiffed-Up Channels: The Role of Spiffs in Hierarchical Selling Organizations," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 31-51, 01-02.
    7. Sanjog Misra & Anne Coughlan & Chakravarthi Narasimhan, 2005. "Salesforce Compensation: An Analytical and Empirical Examination of the Agency Theoretic Approach," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 5-39, January.
    8. Panos Kouvelis & Duo Shi, 2020. "Who Should Compensate the Sales Agent in a Distribution Channel?," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(11), pages 2437-2460, November.
    9. Lee, Chung-Yee & Yang, Ruina, 2013. "Compensation plan for competing salespersons under asymmetric information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(3), pages 570-580.
    10. Sumitro Banerjee & Alex P. Thevaranjan, 2013. "How to deal with unprofitable customers? A salesforce compensation perspective," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-13-05, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    11. Qidan Hu & Ying Peng & Chunxiang Guo & Dong Cai & Peiyang Su, 2019. "Dynamic Incentive Mechanism Design for Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste under Dual Information Asymmetry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-24, May.
    12. Shan Li & Kay-Yut Chen & Ying Rong, 2020. "The Behavioral Promise and Pitfalls in Compensating Store Managers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4899-4919, October.
    13. Tinglong Dai & Kinshuk Jerath, 2019. "Salesforce Contracting Under Uncertain Demand and Supply: Double Moral Hazard and Optimality of Smooth Contracts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(5), pages 852-870, September.
    14. Birendra K. Mishra & Ashutosh Prasad, 2004. "Centralized Pricing Versus Delegating Pricing to the Salesforce Under Information Asymmetry," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 21-27, January.
    15. Albers, Sonke, 1996. "Optimization models for salesforce compensation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 1-17, February.
    16. repec:eee:labchp:v:3:y:1999:i:pb:p:2485-2563 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Doug J. Chung & Thomas Steenburgh & K. Sudhir, 2014. "Do Bonuses Enhance Sales Productivity? A Dynamic Structural Analysis of Bonus-Based Compensation Plans," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 165-187, March.
    18. Onjewu, Adah-Kole Emmanuel & Walton, Nigel & Koliousis, Ioannis, 2023. "Blockchain agency theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    19. David Martimort & Flavio Menezes & Myrna Wooders & ELISABETTA IOSSA & DAVID MARTIMORT, 2015. "The Simple Microeconomics of Public-Private Partnerships," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(1), pages 4-48, February.
    20. Carolyn J. Heinrich & Gerald Marschke, 2010. "Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 183-208.
    21. Hau Lee & Seungjin Whang, 1999. "Decentralized Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: Incentives and Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(5), pages 633-640, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:17:y:1998:i:2:p:107-123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.