Agency Theory: The Battle Between Owners and Managers

Why do investors insist on vesting schedules? Why do Boards of Directors exist? The answer lies in Agency Theory.

Developed in the 1970s and 80s by economists like Michael C. Jensen at Harvard Business School, this theory provides the framework for understanding the often contentious relationship between those who own a company and those who run it.

The Core Players: Principals vs. Agents

Agency theory distinguishes between two parties with distinct roles:

• The Principal (The Owner): The party that delegates responsibility (e.g., the Investor or Shareholder).
• The Agent (The Doer): The party that performs actions on behalf of the principal (e.g., the Founder or CEO).

The theory’s underlying assumption is cynical but realistic: Humans are self-interested. Therefore, the interests of the Principal and the Agent will inevitably diverge. If left unchecked, the Agent will act in their own best interest, not the owner's.

The Root of the Problem: Information Asymmetry

This conflict is exacerbated by Information Asymmetry. The Agent (CEO) is in the office every day; the Principal (Investor) is not.

Because the Agent knows more about the day-to-day reality than the Principal, it is impossible to monitor every action. This "blind spot" creates two specific threats:

1. Adverse Selection (Pre-Contract)

This is the problem of selecting the wrong agent before the deal is signed. Because the founder knows their true ability but the investor does not, the investor risks hiring an agent who claims to be a "star" but is actually ill-suited for the job.

2. Moral Hazard (Post-Contract)

This is the problem of the agent misbehaving after they are hired. Because they aren't being watched 24/7, agents may misappropriate resources. This includes:

• Shirking: Not working as hard as agreed.
• Free Riding: Letting others do the work while taking credit.
• Perks: Excessive consumption of company money (e.g., private jets or fancy dinners).

The Solution: Alignment through Incentives

Since you cannot watch an agent every second, Agency Theorists propose Outcome-Based Incentives.

The goal is to align the Agent's financial interests with the Principal's. This is why Venture Capitalists allocate significant stock options to founders and employees. If the Agent owns a piece of the ship, they are less likely to drill holes in the hull.

1. Agency Theory and Information Asymmetry Theory

Agency Theory operates as a direct functional response to the problem posed by Information Asymmetry Theory. The core conflict in Agency Theory arises because the "Agent" (manager) possesses day-to-day knowledge that the "Principal" (owner) lacks—a "blind spot" that allows for adverse selection and moral hazard. While Information Asymmetry identifies the root cause—unequal access to data—Agency Theory provides the governance mechanisms (vesting schedules, stock options) designed to bridge this gap and align the incentives of the informed agent with the uninformed principal.

2. Agency Theory and Uncertainty-Bearing Theory

There is a distinct division of labor between Frank Knight's entrepreneur and Jensen's agent. In Uncertainty-Bearing Theory, the entrepreneur is defined by their willingness to bear uninsurable risk in exchange for profit. Agency Theory highlights the friction that occurs when this risk-bearer (Principal) hires a risk-averse manager (Agent) who prefers a fixed wage. The agency costs incurred—such as monitoring—are essentially the price the Principal pays to delegate the daily operations while retaining the ultimate burden of Knightian uncertainty.

3. Agency Theory and Transaction Cost Theory

Jensen’s work is deeply rooted in Coase’s Transaction Cost Theory. While Coase argued that firms exist to reduce the transaction costs of using the open market, Jensen reveals that the firm itself is not cost-free. "Agency costs" (monitoring agents and bonding) are simply a specific type of internal transaction cost. Thus, a venture grows not just when it is cheaper than the market, but when the cost of managing internal agency conflicts is lower than the cost of outsourcing those tasks to external providers.

4. Agency Theory and Upper Echelons Theory

Upper Echelons Theory argues that a firm’s strategy is a reflection of the top manager's personal biases and values. Agency Theory takes a more cynical view of this influence, framing those personal biases as potential "Moral Hazard." Where Upper Echelons sees a manager's background as a cognitive filter for strategy, Agency Theory sees it as a potential source of self-dealing (e.g., "shirking" or pursuing "perks"), necessitating strict governance to ensure those executive traits are directed toward shareholder value rather than personal comfort.

5. Agency Theory and X-Efficiency Theory

Leibenstein’s X-Efficiency Theory observes that large firms often operate far below their potential due to "organizational bloat" and "lack of motivation." Agency Theory provides the diagnostic tool for this symptom. The "X-inefficiency" observed in incumbents is often the aggregate result of unchecked agency problems: managers with low equity stakes (Agents) have little incentive to maximize efficiency for the owners (Principals), leading to the very inertia and waste that nimble, owner-operated startups seek to exploit.

---

References