Stackelberg equilibria in managerial delegation games

Managerial compensation packages do not only influence managers' behavior, but also have an impact on competing firms. In a managerial delegation game investigating the latter aspect, it is shown that the inherent prisoner's dilemma situation can be resolved (without changing the normally studied setup or timing). In the first stage, owners choose an incentive function for their managers, in the second stage they choose the weights assigned to that function besides profits and in the third stage managers play a Cournot game. Solving this continuous optimization problem with the implicit function theorem shows that choosing an incentive from the set of "multiplicative incentives", i.e. any generalized affine transformation of the product of both firms' quantities, which includes e.g. relative profit, ensures that the Stackelberg outcome is among the set of equilibrium outcomes. Furthermore, it is the unique outcome if the rival owner opts for one of the well-known incentives like sales, revenue or market share. The general approach used allows demonstrating that with no other linear incentive a Stackelberg outcome results and that incentives like profit-to-cost ratio should be avoided. Selecting a multiplicative incentive is a dominant strategy of the game.

[1]  Robert A. Ritz Strategic incentives for market share , 2008 .

[2]  J. Vickers Delegation and the Theory of the Firm , 1985 .

[3]  Vicente Salas Fumás Relative performance evaluation of management : The effects on industrial competition and risk sharing , 1992 .

[4]  Larry A. Chenault On the uniqueness of Nash equilibria , 1986 .

[5]  Christian Hofmann,et al.  Relative performance evaluation and contract externalities , 2007, OR Spectr..

[6]  Morten Hviid,et al.  Performance-Related Pay in Danish Cooperative Creameries , 2006 .

[7]  A. Ackere The principal/agent paradigm: Its relevance to various functional fields , 1993 .

[8]  K. Basu Stackelberg equilibrium in oligopoly: An explanation based on managerial incentives , 1995 .

[9]  A. Rappaport,et al.  New thinking on how to link executive pay with performance. , 1999, Harvard business review.

[10]  Arjen van Witteloostuijn,et al.  A note on strategic delegation: the market share case , 2007 .

[11]  C. Fershtman,et al.  Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly , 1984 .

[12]  Derek C. Jones Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms , 1987 .

[13]  J. Goodman Note on Existence and Uniqueness of Equilibrium Points for Concave N-Person Games , 1965 .

[14]  Rajesh Aggarwal,et al.  Executive Compensation, Strategic Competition, and Relative Performance Evaluation: Theory and Evidence , 1996 .

[15]  Amit Pazgal,et al.  Relative performance as a strategic commitment mechanism , 2002 .

[16]  Joshua Ronen,et al.  Incentive contracts when production is subcontracted , 1989 .

[17]  Sudesh Mujumdar,et al.  Strategic managerial incentives in a two-period Cournot duopoly , 2007, Games Econ. Behav..

[18]  Arjen van Witteloostuijn,et al.  On the impact of managerial bonus systems on firm profit and market competition: the cases of pure profit, sales, market share and relative profits compared , 2009 .

[19]  Ugo Merlone,et al.  Incentives and individual motivation in supervised work groups , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  S. Sklivas The Strategic Choice of Managerial Incentives , 1987 .