An Agency Theory of the Division of Managerial Labor

References

• Alchian AA, Demsetz H (1972) Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. 62(5):777–795.Google Scholar
• Argyres NS (1996) Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management J. 17(5):395–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS (1999) The impact of information technology on coordination: Evidence from the B-2 “Stealth” bomber. Organ. Sci. 10(2):162–180.Link, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS, Mayer KJ (2007) Contract design as a firm capability: An integration of learning and transaction cost perspectives. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4):1060–1077.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyres NS, Silverman BS (2004) R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management J. 25(8–9):929–958.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Babbage C (1835) On the Economy of Machinery and Manufacturers (Charles Knight, London).Google Scholar
• Barney JB (1986) Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Sci. 32(10):1231–1241.Link, Google Scholar
• Bass BM (1990) Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Cremers KJ, Peyer UC (2011) The CEO pay slice. J. Financial Econom. 102(1):199–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GS, Murphy KM (1992) The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. Quart. J. Econom. 107(4):1137–1160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bennett N, Miles SA (2006) Riding Shotgun: The Role of the COO (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
• Berle AA, Means GC Jr (1932) The Modern Corporation and Private Property (Macmillan, New York).Google Scholar
• Blanchard K, Ballard J, Finch F (2004) Customer Mania! It’s Never Too Late to Build a Customer-Focused Company (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Bolton P, Dewatripont M (1994) The firm as a communication network. Quart. J. Econom. 109(4):809–839.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Castanias RP, Helfat CE (1991) Managerial resources and rents. J. Management 17(1):155–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen M, Knudsen T (2010) Design of decision-making organizations. Management Sci. 56(1):71–89.Link, Google Scholar
• Coff RW (1997) Human assets and management dilemmas: Coping with hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Acad. Management Rev. 22(2):374–402.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coff RW (1999a) How control in human-asset-intensive firms differs from physical-asset intensive firms. J. Managerial Issues 11(4):389–405.Google Scholar
• Coff RW (1999b) When competitive advantage doesn’t lead to performance: The resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organ. Sci. 10(2):119–133.Link, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA (2012) Organizational structure as a determinant of performance: Evidence from mutual funds. Strategic Management J. 33(6):611–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA (2013) An efficient frontier in organization design: Organizational structure as a determinant of exploration and exploitation. Organ. Sci. 24(4):1083–1101.Link, Google Scholar
• Dewatripont M, Jewitt I, Tirole J (2000) Multitask agency problems: Focus and task clustering. Eur. Econom. Rev. 44(4–6):869–877.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Sci. 35(12):1504–1511.Link, Google Scholar
• Dushnitsky G (2010) Entrepreneurial optimism in the market for technological innovation. Organ. Sci. 21(1):150–167.Link, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Sci. 50(2):159–173.Link, Google Scholar
• Fagan PL, Yoshino MY, Bartlett CA (2006) Silvio Napoli at Schindler India (A). HBS Case 9-306-086, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 21(3):625–642.Link, Google Scholar
• Financial News (2002) Firms favour share options for staff. (April 22) http://www.efinancialnews.com.Google Scholar
• Garicano L (2000) Hierarchies and the organization of knowledge in production. J. Political Econom. 108(5):874–904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garicano L, Rossi-Hansberg E (2006) Organization and inequality in a knowledge economy. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1383–1435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gromb D, Martimort D (2007) Collusion and the organization of delegated expertise. J. Econom. Theory 137(1):271–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Puranam P (2009) Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organ. Sci. 20(2):422–440.Link, Google Scholar
• Hambrick DC, Cannella AA Jr (2004) CEOs who have COOs: Contingency analysis of an unexplored structural form. Strategic Management J. 25(10):959–979.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart J (1998) Anger over bonuses revamp at HSBC. Evening Standard (February 18) 33.Google Scholar
• Hayward MLA, Hambrick DC (1997) Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):103–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobides MG (2007) The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organ. Sci. 18(3):455–477.Link, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein B, Crawford RG, Alchian AA (1978) Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. J. Law Econom. 21(2):297–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koch TA, MacDonald SS (2010) Bank Management (South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH).Google Scholar
• Kretschmer T, Puranam P (2008) Integration through incentives within differentiated organizations. Organ. Sci. 19(6):860–875.Link, Google Scholar
• Lambert RA (1986) Executive effort and selection of risky projects. RAND J. Econom. 17(1):77–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lippman SA, Rumelt RP (1982) Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. Bell J. Econom. 13(2):418–438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makadok R (2001) Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management J. 22(5):387–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makadok R (2003) Doing the right thing and knowing the right thing to do: Why the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Strategic Management J. 24(10):1043–1055.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makadok R, Coff R (2009) Both market and hierarchy: An incentive-system theory of hybrid governance forms. Acad. Management Rev. 34(2):297–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manso G (2011) Motivating innovation. J. Finance 66(5):1823–1860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marcel JJ (2009) Why top management team characteristics matter when employing a chief operating officer: A strategic contingency perspective. Strategic Management J. 30(6):647–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mayer KJ, Argyres NS (2004) Learning to contract: Evidence from the personal computer industry. Organ. Sci. 15(4):394–410.Link, Google Scholar
• Mayer KJ, Nickerson JA (2005) Antecedents and performance implications of contracting for knowledge workers: Evidence from information technology services. Organ. Sci. 16(3):225–242.Link, Google Scholar
• Mintzberg H (1980) Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Sci. 26(3):322–341.Link, Google Scholar
• Murray M (2000) Deputy dilemma: Investors like backup, but does every CEO really need a sidekick? Wall Street Journal (February 24) A1.Google Scholar
• Nickerson JA, Silverman BS (2003) Why firms want to organize efficiently and what keeps them from doing so: Inappropriate governance, performance, and adaptation in a deregulated industry. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(3):433–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (2003) Today’s credit markets, relationship banking, and tying. White paper, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC. http://www.occ.gov/topics/laws-regulations/TyingWhitePaper.pdf.Google Scholar
• Penrose E (2009) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 4th ed. (Blackwell, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Peteraf MA (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management J. 14(3):179–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pierce JL, Dunham RB (1976) Task design: A literature review. Acad. Management Rev. 1(4):83–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Postrel S (2002) Islands of shared knowledge: Specialization and mutual understanding in problem-solving teams. Organ. Sci. 13(3):303–320.Link, Google Scholar
• Postrel S (2009) Multitasking teams with variable complementarity: Challenges for capability management. Acad. Management Rev. 34(2):273–296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C (1999) The provision of incentives within firms. J. Econom. Literature 37(1):7–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rao H, Drazin R (2002) Overcoming resource constraints on product innovation by recruiting talent from rivals: A study of the mutual fund industry, 1986–94. Acad. Management J. 45(3):491–507.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rasmusen E, Zenger TR (1990) Diseconomies of scale in employment contracts. J. Law, Econom., Organ. 6(1):65–92.Google Scholar
• Ross DG (2012) On evaluation costs in strategic factor markets: The implications for competition and organizational design. Management Sci. 58(4):791–804.Link, Google Scholar
• Sah RK, Stiglitz JE (1986) The architecture of economic systems: Hierarchies and polyarchies. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(4):716–727.Google Scholar
• Scherer F (1967) Research and development resource allocation under rivalry. Quart. J. Econom. 81(3):359–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shen TY (1970) Economies of scale, Penrose-effect, growth of plans and their size distribution. J. Political Econom. 78(4):702–716.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ. Sci. 14(6):650–669.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith A (1776) An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (W. Strahan and T. Cadell, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tan D, Mahoney JT (2005) Examining the Penrose effect in an international business context: The dynamics of Japanese firm growth in US industries. Managerial Decision Econom. 26(2):113–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Wezel FC, Cattani G, Pennings JM (2006) Competitive implications of interfirm mobility. Organ. Sci. 17(6):691–709.Link, Google Scholar
• Williamson OE (1975) Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the Economics of Internal Organization (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Zenger TR (1994) Explaining organizational diseconomies of scale in R&D: Agency problems and the allocation of engineering talent, ideas, and effort by firm size. Management Sci. 40(6):708–729.Link, Google Scholar
• Zenger TR, Lazzarini SG (2004) Compensating for innovation: Do small firms offer high-powered incentives that lure talent and motivate effort? Managerial Decision Econom. 25(6–7):329–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang Y (2006) The presence of a separate COO/president and its impact on strategic change and CEO dismissal. Strategic Management J. 27(3):283–300.Crossref, Google Scholar