Lack of communicating is frequently a quandary that pestilences and permeates larger companies, frequently non through pick. As a company grows and expands more people will be required to come on board and the figure of operations which have to be monitored and controlled rises. The effect of this is really frequently the drift for motivational jobs among proprietors and work force likewise. Throughout this essay I will be concerned with big companies and the divergency of dockets and aims. Situations where proprietors communicate one thing but direction on the land act to maximize their ain ego involvement ensuing in alternate action. Very frequently the misinterpretation of each other ‘s specific demands ( or the deficiency of ) can stem from a simple deficiency of communicating and consciousness of each other ‘s demands. This introduces the construct of divorce and control.

To set this into position I present the undermentioned state of affairs with fictional company Screen Media. Screen Media Ltd is a company that specialises in supplying engineering to movie studios throughout the UK, chiefly green screen equipment. The recent recession has seen an addition in the figure of people taking to remain at place rental or purchasing movies. To take advantage of the recent jet in place media, Screen Media decided to spread out the company throughout Europe. Stockholders debated that while net incomes were ever solid, they could be better and the recent move into Europe would be the best clip to set about a policy of net income maximization that would in bend maximise stockholder rating in the company. However due to the divorce between ownership and command the stockholders have now become unsure over whether the direction doing the twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours determinations ( who should finally be implementing the policy of net income maximization ) are still runing to maximize net incomes. And therein lies the quandary behind the divorce of ownership and control and finally a quandary which is traveling to show itself in any big company peculiarly if or merely late if spread outing.

This uncertainness over whether or non directors are sabotaging the policy desired by stockholders is referred to as the rule agent job and is a construct that has plagued economic experts and stockholders really conspicuously in the existent universe. An article in The Guardian by Zoe Wood in 2008 demonstrated this fact by foregrounding several outstanding instances in which the rule agent job plagued existent life companies but besides provided a really interesting position on puting such high importance on stockholders. I will come back to this later.

The Enron fraud dirt was a authoritative narrative of how the rule agent job that occurred in the United States about destroyed the company. Persons purchasing portions in Enron had no thought that they were really purchasing into “ a large clump of debt ” [ ] . This occurred because the fiscal direction “ overstated its net incomes since 1997 by ?586 million ” [ ] by “ making a web of partnerships – companies it controlled – but whose debt did non look on the balance sheet ” [ ] . This is such a controversial illustration of the rule agent job. The stockholders had no manner of supervising the determinations being made by the fiscal directors. The determination to exaggerate net incomes ( and finally commit fraud ) was one undertaken by the direction non the stockholders. As mentioned in the debut this type of behavior is really common in big houses, particularly where communicating has become hindered by enlargement. A good inquiry to inquire is why would these agents undermine or diverge from the wants of the rule? Possibly a more specific inquiry to inquire in relation to Enron is why would they be willing to perpetrate fraud to cover up the desperate state of affairs they had created, even from the proprietors?

Frequently the rule agent job stems from conflicting aims. Take the fiscal troughs of Enron. They as directors have a different interest in the company and acted to maximize their ain ego involvements over the involvements of the proprietors and the company. As stockholders they acted to maximize and protect those facets which were of import to them: Wages, power, prestigiousness and the fringe benefits they receive over bring forthing good dividends and growing in portion rating for stockholders. Had a seeable job came to light early on with respects to Enron the fiscal direction would hold lost the power and fringe benefits they had developed over the specific period of clip. Hiding the truth from the proprietors and finally moving merely to protect themselves became the manner of pull offing the company for over 5 old ages, with no respects for the other stakeholders.

“ Traditional economic theory assumes there is a individual end. Behavioral economic experts argue otherwise ” [, 2002 PowerPoint ] . In relation to Enron the hierarchy of administration was: Stockholders, direction, employees and clients. The job is that each group has their ain aims and will move to maximize those aims. I have to hold with those behavioral economic experts that province houses are a aggregation of ends from changing groups. The state of affairs may travel from maximizing net incomes to being replaced with fulfilling ain aims ensuing in merely acceptable degrees of accomplishments being achieved.

Having looked at the rule agent job in relation to Enron, a existent life illustration, I will now return to the fictional company Screen Media Ltd to show the differences between monetary value, degree of end product and the net income generated by alternate policy – gross revenues gross maximization.

If the proprietors of Screen Media Ltd make up one’s mind on a policy of net income maximization, they want to find a monetary value and end product degree that will bring forth the greatest return of net income. Figure 1 shows a graph visualizing the net income maximising end product where fringy gross = fringy cost. As net income is defined as the difference between entire gross and entire cost, the distance between the two in figure 1 is the net income made by the house. Therefore the net income maximising end product is Q1 which can be sold at monetary value of P1.

As explored through the Enron illustration some directors would instead move to maximize their ain aims over that of the stockholders. This theory is corroborated by the work of William Baumol who carried out extended research in 1959. His research was focussed on concerns precisely like Enron, concerns which can be described as director controlled “ where the twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours determinations taken by directors are divorced from stockholders ” .

“ Baumol argued that one-year wages and other fringe benefits might be more closely correlated with entire gross revenues gross instead than bottom line net incomes. An alternate position was put frontward by Oliver Williamson ( 1963 ) , who built a theoretical account based on the construct of managerial satisfaction ( public-service corporation ) ” [, Alternatives to Profit Maximisation Theories ] .

What both Baumol and Williamson were stating was that a different policy would frequently be adopted by the direction who were doing the twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours determinations. Policies that would function their ain ego involvements instead than that of the proprietors. Williamson believed that raising gross revenues gross was the manner in which directors could accomplish this. So now a state of affairs has developed where alternatively of net income maximization being pursed ( as seen in figure 1 ) the direction of Screen Media may now follow a policy of gross maximization, against the wants of the stockholders. Those fringe benefits and high wages that directors want are now closely correlated with gross revenues. Figure 2 brings the policies of net income maximization and gross maximization together so that the differences in monetary value, end product and net income can be observed more clearly. Now under gross maximization the house will bring forth at end product Q2 where the fringy gross = 0, ensuing in a lower monetary value but increased end product. I can reason that the monetary value has gone down but the end product has increased.

Figure 3 touches upon the net incomes lost under gross maximization as seen by the shaded country. The ground for this loss of net income is explored farther with the text description under the diagram and can be compared with the net income gained under net income maximization in figure 1.

Earlier in the essay I touched upon a point that I thought would be extremely relevant to reference and will lucubrate upon that now. An article in The Guardian ( 2008 ) touched upon the UK and how it can now be seen as a “ corporate administration of the universe ” in relation to “ The UK Corporate Governance Code and associated counsel ” ( once the combined codification ) . The article provinces:

“ Critics charge that the consequence of the combined codifications is to enshrine stockholder value as the exclusive intent of companies, and that, by concentrating on principal-agent jobs ( how to guarantee director and worker ‘agents ‘ carry out the wants of stockholder ‘principals ‘ ) , they at the same time overemphasise the control map of the board at the disbursal of creative activity and entrepreneurship ” [, 2008 ]

I have to hold with the stance these critics are doing in the article. Not merely in relation to the combined codifications but in general there has to be an consciousness from all sides that each group has specific wants and demands and will move to protect their ain opportunism. Therefore to get the better of possible jobs possibly larger houses could see set abouting attacks that straight involve directors and employees in the net incomes of the house. Not merely will this better productiveness and motive but besides let the policies that the proprietors want implemented to be followed by the other groups that make up a concern, non abandoned in the hunt to protect and procure self involvement.

In decision,

Depending upon the stance taken by stockholders in much larger houses, they could happen themselves sing the under throws of the rule agent job. A quandary which can be expensive to supervise or potentially really detrimental if the determinations made by the agent are undertaken to function self-interest or quite perchance even illegal ( as discussed above with the Enron instance ) .

This occurs because the assorted groups that make up a company all have different demands. If the proprietors decide on a policy of net income maximization ( which was made to better their growing in portion rating ) the agent can pretermit this and alternatively concentrate on an alternate to gain maximization that will profit them alternatively ( a higher wage ) . This will do an evident displacement in the monetary value that the house sells its end product, the degree of end product at which it sells at and the sum of net income the company will do under an alternate to gain maximization.

Other options of net income maximization include: Utility maximization and Growth Maximisation. Growth maximization being peculiarly utile as it encourages growing ; through this growing the ends of both proprietors and stockholders can be achieved. This construct in peculiar reinforces what I mentioned earlier about different groups in a concern holding their ain specific demands. Growth maximization gives proprietors and stockholders a common intent and hence helps to ease the effects of a rule agent job.

There are besides a figure of strategies that stockholders could implement that would understate the opportunity of any possible jobs. A good illustration is an employee portion – ownership strategy, which has been undertaken by houses such as Ryan Air. “ Ryan Air one of Europe ‘s fastest turning low-priced air hoses offered its pilots a portion… The trade entails a 15 % rise in basic wage over five old ages pilots every bit good as the portion options and a productiveness understanding ” [, The Principle Agent Problem ] .

This strategy straight links employee public presentation with the net incomes that the company makes and as such they will be more motivated to make a good occupation and transport out the wants of the proprietors as all groups will hold a common intent.