Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 75 references

Decision-facilitating information in hidden-action setups: An agent-based approach

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Better environmental information beats better task information in hidden-action setups.

desk verdict The environmental-information result is solid, but the exploration/exploitation analysis hinges on a decision rule that means the opposite of what the paper says and is undefined for the m=1 cases that anchor the central figures. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07998 v2 pith:Q5P5X5X4 submitted 2019-08-21 econ.GN econ.THq-fin.EC

Stephan Leitner , Friederike Wall This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNecon.THq-fin.EC
keywords hidden-actionmodelprincipal-agentagent-basedsimulationdecision-facilitatinginformationexplorationexploitationsystemsophisticationenvironmentaluncertaintymanagementcontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether, when an employer cannot observe an employee's effort, information that helps the two parties decide—rather than information that merely evaluates outcomes—changes how well the relationship performs. To answer, it replaces the standard one-period hidden-action model with an agent-based simulation in which the principal and the agent learn about the environment over time, and in which the principal only knows part of the feasible effort space and must search for new options. Its central claim is that the value of decision-facilitating information is conditional: knowing more about feasible actions only improves performance when the parties already have good information about the environment, and choosing between exploration and exploitation only matters in that same situation. Environmental information, by contrast, matters in almost every scenario, raising final performance from about 0.74 to 0.95 in stable environments and from about 0.68 to 0.87 in turbulent ones.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a computational variant of the classic hidden-action principal-agent problem, populated with two learning agents and three information systems: IS 1-P and IS 1-A store the principal's and agent's estimates of the environmental shock (sophistication $m = 1$, $3$, or $\infty$); IS 2-P stores the principal's limited view of the feasible action space (sophistication $q = 3$, $5$, or $10$); IS 2-A gives the agent the full action space. The load-bearing mechanism for the exploration and exploitation results is the principal's endogenous threshold $\kappa_t$, computed from the normal cumulative distribution function of her estimated shock distribution with innovation propensity $\delta$ (Eq. 5): when her estimate of the previous period's shock exceeds $\kappa_t$ she searches globally, otherwise locally. The performance measure is the average normalized effort $a_t/a^*$ relative to the second-best solution of the standard model.

What would settle it

A direct check is to re-run the simulation with a different search-trigger rule, say comparing expected principal utility from local versus global search instead of comparing the latest shock estimate to $\kappa_t$, and see whether the conclusion that search strategy only matters with good environmental information survives. A second check is the paper's own Fig. 7, where with $m=1$ and low uncertainty, improving internal information raises final performance from about 0.71 to 0.82, which would contradict the unconditional version of the headline claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is conditional, not unconditional: in an agent-based version of Holmström's hidden-action model, information systems that list feasible actions matter only once the decision makers are well informed about the environment; the exploration-versus-exploitation choice matters only then as well; and good environmental information is valuable in almost all settings. More specifically, the sophistication of the principal's internal information system (parameter $q$, the inverse of the fraction $1/q$ of the action space the principal sees) does not change the performance contours when the external information systems store only one past estimate ($m=1$); it begins to matter at $m=3$ and $m=\infty$. Under those better-informed conditions, the contours tilt so that a higher exploration propensity ($\delta=0.75$) yields slightly better performance than exploitation ($\delta=0.25$). The authors also report that turbulent environments exert a 'pressure to innovate' that produces an immediate performance jump when environmental information is poor, after which performance plateaus; with good environmental information, performance keeps rising for more periods and reaches higher final levels.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the model's specific rule for when the principal abandons local search for global search—a fixed threshold on her estimated environmental shock—so if a different, equally reasonable search rule were used, the paper's conclusions about exploration and exploitation could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Managers should prioritize spending on information about the environment over spending on finer knowledge of internal task options, since environmental information improves performance in almost all simulated settings.
  • When the organization's read on the environment is poor, the exploration-versus-exploitation decision is a second-order concern: either search strategy performs about the same.
  • In turbulent environments, gains from improving internal information systems are small, because pressure to innovate already lifts performance quickly at the start; further gains come from better external information.
  • Once external information is good, a bias toward exploration beats a bias toward exploitation, so ambidexterity advice should be conditioned on information quality.
  • With good environmental information, average effort approaches the optimal-effort benchmark (about 0.95 in stable environments after 20 periods), whereas poor environmental information leaves it well short.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own Fig. 7 complicates the headline claim: with poor environmental information ($m=1$) and low environmental uncertainty, final performance still rises from about 0.71 to about 0.82 as internal information improves, so the 'only matters when well informed' conclusion likely depends on the time horizon and on whether performance is averaged over the full 20 periods.
  • The threshold rule that triggers global search is an ad hoc mapping from the estimated shock distribution; replacing it with an expected-utility-difference rule could change whether search strategy matters, and the paper does not test such alternatives.
  • Because the model has no search costs, the slight superiority of exploration under good environmental information may not survive in settings where search is costly; adding search costs is a direct extension.
  • The results suggest a testable organizational prediction: firms in turbulent environments with weak environmental scanning should not invest in action-space databases, while firms with strong environmental scanning should—and among those, firms biased toward exploration should perform slightly better.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper transfers Holmström's static hidden-action model into an agent-based simulation in which the principal and the agent learn about environmental shocks over time and the principal has only partial information about the action space. The principal chooses between local and global search for effort levels using a threshold rule based on a propensity-to-innovate parameter δ, while the agent is assumed to know the full action space. The study varies the sophistication of the environmental information systems (m), the sophistication of the principal's internal action-space information system (q), environmental turbulence (σ), and the search propensity (δ), running 700 simulations per scenario over 20 periods. Performance is measured by normalized effort relative to the second-best solution of the standard model. The paper's headline claims are that information about feasible actions matters only when environmental information is good, that exploration versus exploitation matters only in specific situations, and that good environmental information is crucial in almost all settings.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper offers a useful extension of principal-agent analysis to settings with limited decision-facilitating information and provides a template for translating closed-form agency models into computational models. The study is transparent in its parameter choices, benchmarks performance against the analytic second-best solution, and reports confidence intervals over a large number of runs, all of which are strengths. The central conclusions, however, rest on a search-trigger rule that is not robustly specified, and the abstract overstates what the paper's own figures show. With corrections to the trigger rule and to the wording of the main claims, the contribution could be of interest to management control, information-systems, and computational economics audiences.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) reverses the meaning of δ and is undefined for the leading poor-information case. As written, the right-hand side of Eq. (5) is the normal CDF of Θ~t evaluated at κt, so κt = μ(Θ~t) + σ(Θ~t)Φ^{-1}(δ). Since the rule triggers global search when θ~_{t-1} > κt, the probability of global search is 1−δ, not δ. Consequently, the labels in Sec. 3.3 are reversed: δ=0.25 makes the principal exploration-prone and δ=0.75 makes her exploitation-prone, and the qualitative conclusions in Sec. 4.2 about exploration being superior under good environmental information would be reversed. In addition, for m=1 the vector Θ~t contains a single observation, so σ(Θ~t)=0 and the right-hand side of Eq. (5) has no solution in δ∈(0,1); the paper gives no fallback for this case, which is precisely the poor-information case used in Figs. 7–9. Either the implemented code does not follow Eq. (5), making the formal model incomplete, or it does, making the independent variable mislabeled. Both readings leave the exploration/exploitation results unsupported as stated.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 4.1, Fig. 7] The headline claim that information about feasible actions matters only when decision makers are well informed about the environment is contradicted by the paper's own results. In Fig. 7, with poor external information (m=1) and low environmental uncertainty (σ=0.05x*), the final normalized effort is about 0.71 at 1/q=1/10 and about 0.82 at 1/q=1/3; these values are reported in the Sec. 4.1 discussion. This is a substantial performance increase in a poorly informed environment, not a negligible effect. The abstract and the concluding bullet list should be revised to a weaker, evidence-consistent statement, for example that action-space information has a larger or faster effect when environmental information is good, rather than claiming it has no impact otherwise.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Sec. 4.2] Even setting aside the directional error and the m=1 degeneracy, the exploration/exploitation trigger is an ad hoc behavioral assumption with no reported robustness analysis. The threshold rule in Eq. (5) is not derived from search theory or empirical evidence, and the paper does not test whether the Sec. 4.2 conclusions survive alternative plausible rules, such as triggers based on expected-utility differences or on costs of search. Because the central claim that search strategy matters only under good environmental information is generated by this single rule, the conclusion is fragile until the authors either justify the rule or show robustness across specifications.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (10)] The displayed expression for the performance indicator has mismatched parentheses; it should be clear that the normalization by a* applies to each simulated effort level before averaging.
  2. [Eq. (11)] The measure d is described as a Manhattan distance, but it is a signed sum of deviations from the optimum, not a sum of absolute values; this should be clarified or renamed.
  3. [Sec. 4.2, first subsection] The sentence 'We keep the sophistication level of the principal's IS for internal information IS 2-P constant at m = 1' uses the external-information parameter m in a sentence about the internal IS; the intended value appears to be 1/q=1/10.
  4. [Sec. 4.2, second subsection] The text refers to increasing the sophistication of the 'IS for external information' and then gives values of 1/q, which parameterize the internal IS 2-P; the terminology is inconsistent and should be corrected.
  5. [Fig. 7 and Sec. 4.1] The caption of Fig. 7 says high environmental uncertainty is represented by black diamonds, while the text in Sec. 4.1 says black triangles; these should be made consistent.
  6. [Sec. 5] The final sentence of the limitations paragraph is grammatically incomplete ('...coming up with alternative incentive schemes which a promising line for future research').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all reported findings are simulation outputs benchmarked against an external second-best solution, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the results it reports. The performance indicator in Eq. (10) normalizes simulated effort levels by a*, the second-best effort from the Holmström model, which is computed independently from the stated utility functions and scenario parameters and is not calibrated to make the simulations come out a particular way. The manipulated variables (m for external information quality, q for internal information quality, δ for search propensity, and σ for environmental uncertainty) are fixed exogenously across 108 scenarios, and the central claims—that action-space information matters mainly when environmental information is good and that exploration/exploitation choices matter only in specific situations—are read off the resulting time paths and contour plots rather than being embedded in the model equations. The self-citations (refs. 20, 21, 23, 24) support only the methodological transfer of closed-form models to agent-based simulation and prior use of simulation in management control; they do not supply the target results, so they are not load-bearing. A specification concern exists: the threshold rule in Eq. (5) is undefined when m=1 because σ(Θ~_t)=0 for a single stored observation, and as written the global-search event θ~_{t-1}>κ_t occurs with probability 1−δ, reversing the intended meaning of δ. That is a modeling-validity or correctness issue, not circularity, because the threshold does not encode the performance outcomes whose pattern is then announced. No step in the derivation reduces a claimed prediction to an input by construction, so no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several freely chosen parameters (risk aversion, productivity, disutility coefficient) and ad hoc behavioral rules (moving-average learning, normal-CDF exploration threshold). The reservation utility value is not reported. No parameters are fitted to target the reported results, so the central claims are not artifacts of calibration, but the qualitative findings may be sensitive to the chosen functional forms.

free parameters (8)
  • eta (agent risk aversion) = 0.5
    Set by the authors without sensitivity analysis; affects the agent's incentive response and the optimal sharing rule.
  • rho (agent productivity) = 50
    Set by the authors; scales outcome and the normalized effort benchmark.
  • delta (principal's propensity to innovate) = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
    Varied across scenarios; defines the exploration threshold in Eq. (5).
  • m (sophistication of IS 1-P and IS 1-A) = 1, 3, infinity
    Varied across scenarios; sets the number of past shock observations used in the expectation.
  • q (sophistication of IS 2-P) = 3, 5, 10
    Varied across scenarios; defines the fraction 1/q of the action space visible to the principal.
  • sigma (environmental turbulence) = 0.05x*, 0.25x*, 0.45x*, 0.65x*
    Varied across scenarios; standard deviation of the exogenous shock, scaled relative to the optimal outcome x*.
  • U (agent's reservation utility) = not stated
    Exogenous and fixed, but its value is not reported in the text; it bounds the action space via the participation constraint.
  • Coefficient in agent's disutility G(a) = 0.1 a^2 = 0.1
    Chosen without stated justification; affects effort costs and therefore the optimal effort benchmark.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Hidden-action model's first-order approach and incentive compatibility constraint are transferred to the agent-based setting (Eqs. 1a-1c, Appendix C).
    The principal's optimization uses the Holmström first-order approach; this is a standard result the paper relies on.
  • domain assumption Outcome is linear in effort and shock: x_t = a_t * rho + theta_t (Eq. 3).
    Functional form assumed without justification; determines how effort and environment interact.
  • ad hoc to paper Exogenous shocks are normally distributed, theta_t ~ N(0, sigma), and expectations are moving averages of past observations (Eqs. 6 and 8).
    The learning model, called 'simultaneous sequential learning', is a modeling choice; the results depend on how expectations are formed.
  • ad hoc to paper The exploration threshold kappa_t is defined by Eq. (5) as the quantile of the estimated normal distribution corresponding to delta, and the principal searches globally when her estimate exceeds it.
    This decision rule is not derived from theory and is a fragile structural assumption in the model.
  • domain assumption The agent is fully informed about the entire action space A_t while the principal only knows 1/q of it.
    Justified by decentralization literature, but it is a stark asymmetry that drives several results.
  • domain assumption First-order stochastic dominance of effort on outcome, so the principal always selects the highest discovered effort level.
    The paper states this assumption in Section 3.2; it simplifies evaluation but rules out non-monotone effort preferences.
  • standard math CARA utility for the agent, U_A = (1 - exp(-eta s(x)))/eta - 0.1 a^2 (Eq. 4).
    Standard economics assumption; the specific coefficients are chosen freely.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decision-facilitating information in hidden-action setups: An agent-based approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5P5X5X4

@misc{pith2026190807998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decision-facilitating information in hidden-action setups: An agent-based approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5P5X5X4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07998}
}
read the original abstract

The hidden-action model captures a fundamental problem of principal-agent theory and provides an optimal sharing rule when only the outcome but not the effort can be observed. However, the hidden-action model builds on various explicit and also implicit assumptions about the information of the contracting parties. This paper relaxes key assumptions regarding the availability of information included in the hidden-action model in order to study whether and, if so, how fast the optimal sharing rule is achieved and how this is affected by the various types of information employed in the principal-agent relation. Our analysis particularly focuses on information about the environment and about feasible actions for the agent. We follow an approach to transfer closed-form mathematical models into agent-based computational models and show that the extent of information about feasible options to carry out a task only has an impact on performance if decision makers are well informed about the environment, and that the decision whether to perform exploration or exploitation when searching for new feasible options only affects performance in specific situations. Having good information about the environment, on the contrary, appears to be crucial in almost all situations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Holmstr ¨om, The Bell Journal of Economics 10(1), 74 (1979)

    B. Holmstr ¨om, The Bell Journal of Economics 10(1), 74 (1979)

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    Lambert, Journal of Accounting and Economics 32(1-3), 3 (2001)

    R.A. Lambert, Journal of Accounting and Economics 32(1-3), 3 (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Eisenhardt, Academy of Management Review 14(1), 57 (1989)

    K.M. Eisenhardt, Academy of Management Review 14(1), 57 (1989)

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    Baiman, Journal of Accounting Literature 1, 154 (1982)

    S. Baiman, Journal of Accounting Literature 1, 154 (1982)

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    Baiman, Accounting, Organizations and Society 15(4), 341 (1990)

    S. Baiman, Accounting, Organizations and Society 15(4), 341 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Hesford, S.H.S

    J.W. Hesford, S.H.S. Lee, W.A. Van der Stede, S.M. Young, inHandbook of Management Accounting Research, vol. 1, ed. by C.S. Chapman, A.G. Hoopwood, M.D. Shields (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007), pp. 3–26

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Lambert, in Handbook of Management Accounting Research, vol

    R.A. Lambert, in Handbook of Management Accounting Research, vol. 1, ed. by C.S. Chapman, A.G. Hopwood, M.D. Shields (Elsevier, 2006), pp. 247–268

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Demski, G.A

    J.S. Demski, G.A. Feltham, Cost determination: A conceptual approach(Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1976)

    work page 1976

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    M ¨uller, Die Betriebswirtschaft 1995(1), 61 (1995)

    C. M ¨uller, Die Betriebswirtschaft 1995(1), 61 (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    Axtell, The Review of Austrian Economics 20(2-3), 105 (2007)

    R.L. Axtell, The Review of Austrian Economics 20(2-3), 105 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Simon, The American Economic Review 49(3), 253 (1959)

    H.A. Simon, The American Economic Review 49(3), 253 (1959)

    1959

  4. [12]

    Simon, The American Economic Review 69(4), 493 (1979)

    H.A. Simon, The American Economic Review 69(4), 493 (1979)

    1979

  5. [13]

    Perrow, Theory and Society 15(1-2), 11 (1986)

    C. Perrow, Theory and Society 15(1-2), 11 (1986)

    1986

  6. [14]

    Hendry, Academy of Management Review 27(1), 98 (2002) Decision-facilitating information in hidden-action setups: An agent-based approach 33

    J. Hendry, Academy of Management Review 27(1), 98 (2002) Decision-facilitating information in hidden-action setups: An agent-based approach 33

    2002

  7. [15]

    March, Organization Science 2(1), 71 (1991)

    J.G. March, Organization Science 2(1), 71 (1991)

    1991

  8. [16]

    Vandenbosch, S.L

    B. Vandenbosch, S.L. Hu ff, MIS Quarterly 21(1), 81 (1997)

    1997

  9. [17]

    Sch ¨affer, D

    U. Sch ¨affer, D. Steiners, Zeitschrift f¨u Planung & Unternehmenssteuerung 15(4), 377 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    Sch ¨affer, D

    U. Sch ¨affer, D. Steiners, Controlling & Management Review 49(3), 209 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Hall, Accounting, Organizations and Society 35(3), 301 (2010)

    M. Hall, Accounting, Organizations and Society 35(3), 301 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Guerrero, R

    O.A. Guerrero, R. Axtell, in Emergent Results of Artificial Economics, Lecture Notes on Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 652, ed. by S. Osinga, G.J. Hofstede, T. Verwaart (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011), pp. 139–150

    2011

  13. [21]

    Leitner, D.A

    S. Leitner, D.A. Behrens, Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems 21(5), 413 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Davis, K.M

    J.P. Davis, K.M. Eisenhardt, C.B. Bingham, Academy of Management Review 32(2), 480 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Leitner, F

    S. Leitner, F. Wall, Journal of Management Control pp. 1–25 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Wall, Review of Managerial Science 10(1), 135 (2016)

    F. Wall, Review of Managerial Science 10(1), 135 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Harris, A

    M. Harris, A. Raviv, Journal of Economic Theory 20(2), 231 (1979)

    1979

  18. [26]

    Spence, R

    M. Spence, R. Zeckhauser, The American Economic Review 61, 380 (1971)

    1971

  19. [27]

    Caillaud, B.E

    B. Caillaud, B.E. Hermalin, Technical Notes, Ecole Ponts et Chauss ´ee, Par´ıs, and University of Cali- fornia, Berkeley (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Arrow, Review of Economic Studies 31(2), 91 (1964)

    K.J. Arrow, Review of Economic Studies 31(2), 91 (1964)

    1964

  21. [29]

    Stiglitz, The American Economist 47(2), 6 (2003)

    J.E. Stiglitz, The American Economist 47(2), 6 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Frieden, R.J

    B.R. Frieden, R.J. Hawkins, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 389(2), 287 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Hawkins, M

    R.J. Hawkins, M. Aoki, B.R. Frieden, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 389(17), 3565 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Capurro, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique

    R. Capurro, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sus- tainable Information Society 7(2), 125 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Hofkirchner, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique

    W. Hofkirchner, tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 7(2), 357 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Madden, in Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, vol

    A.D. Madden, in Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, vol. 52 (Emerald Group Publish- ing Limited, 2000), pp. 343–349

    2000

  27. [35]

    McCreadie, R.E

    M. McCreadie, R.E. Rice, Information Processing & Management 35(1), 45 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    Khan, Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal 49(3), 13 (2018)

    M.T. Khan, Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal 49(3), 13 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Soofi, Journal of the American Statistical Association 89(428), 1243 (1994)

    E.S. Soofi, Journal of the American Statistical Association 89(428), 1243 (1994)

    1994

  30. [38]

    Shannon, Bell System Technical Journal 27(3), 379 (1948)

    C.E. Shannon, Bell System Technical Journal 27(3), 379 (1948)

    1948

  31. [39]

    Shannon, ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 5(1), 3 (2001)

    C.E. Shannon, ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 5(1), 3 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Stiglitz, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4), 1441 (2000)

    J.E. Stiglitz, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4), 1441 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Buckland, in Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting , vol

    M.K. Buckland, in Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting , vol. 27 (Information Today Inc., Med- ford, 1990), pp. 239–246

    1990

  34. [42]

    Taylor, in Progress in Communication Sciences, ed

    R.S. Taylor, in Progress in Communication Sciences, ed. by B. Dervin, M. V oigt, 10th edn. (Ablex, Norwood, 1991), pp. 217–255

    1991

  35. [43]

    Katzer, P.T

    J. Katzer, P.T. Fletcher, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) 27, 227 (1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    Budd, The Information Society 5(1), 41 (1987)

    R.W. Budd, The Information Society 5(1), 41 (1987)

    1987

  37. [45]

    Dienes, J

    Z. Dienes, J. Perner, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(5), 735 (1999)

    1999

  38. [46]

    Spremann, in Agency theory, information, and incentives , ed

    K. Spremann, in Agency theory, information, and incentives , ed. by G. Bamberg, K. Spremann, corrected edn. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, 1987), chap. 1, pp. 3–37

    1987

  39. [47]

    Kreps, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society pp

    D.M. Kreps, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society pp. 565–577 (1979)

    1979

  40. [48]

    Puppe, Journal of Economic Theory 68(1), 174 (1996)

    C. Puppe, Journal of Economic Theory 68(1), 174 (1996)

    1996

  41. [49]

    Billot, in Beliefs, Interactions and Preferences in Decision Making (Springer, 1999), pp

    A. Billot, in Beliefs, Interactions and Preferences in Decision Making (Springer, 1999), pp. 121–134

    1999

  42. [50]

    Dumond, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14(9), 16 (1994)

    E.J. Dumond, International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14(9), 16 (1994)

    1994

  43. [51]

    Feltham, The Accounting Review 43(4), 684 (1968)

    G.A. Feltham, The Accounting Review 43(4), 684 (1968)

    1968

  44. [52]

    Epstein, Journal of General Management 29(1), 68 (2003)

    E.M. Epstein, Journal of General Management 29(1), 68 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    Daft, K.E

    R.L. Daft, K.E. Weick, Academy of Management Review 9(2), 284 (1984)

    1984

  46. [54]

    X. Guo, B. Reithel, Journal of Computer Information Systems pp. 1–14 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Y . Liu, Y . Lee, A.N. Chen, Decision Support Systems51(3), 688 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Goodhue, R.L

    D.L. Goodhue, R.L. Thompson, MIS Quarterly pp. 213–236 (1995)

    1995

  49. [57]

    Akerlof, Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(August), 488 (1970)

    G.A. Akerlof, Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(August), 488 (1970)

    1970

  50. [58]

    Rajan, R.E

    M.V . Rajan, R.E. Saouma, The Accounting Review 81(3), 677 (2006)

    2006

  51. [59]

    Arrow, in Principals and agents: The structure of business, ed

    K.J. Arrow, in Principals and agents: The structure of business, ed. by J. Pratt, R. Zeckhauser (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1985), pp. 37–51 34 Stephan Leitner, Friederike Wall

    1985

  52. [60]

    Pratt, Econometrica 32(1/2), 122 (1975)

    J.W. Pratt, Econometrica 32(1/2), 122 (1975)

    1975

  53. [61]

    Jost, Die Prinzipal-Agenten-Theorie in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre(Sch¨affer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, 2001)

    P.J. Jost, Die Prinzipal-Agenten-Theorie in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre(Sch¨affer-Poeschel, Stuttgart, 2001)

    2001

  54. [62]

    Tushman, C.A

    M.L. Tushman, C.A. O’Reilly III, California management review 38(4), 8 (1996)

    1996

  55. [63]

    O’Reilly, M.L

    C.A. O’Reilly, M.L. Tushman, Academy of management Perspectives 27(4), 324 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Mendes, C

    M. Mendes, C. Gomes, P. Marques-Quinteiro, P. Lind, L. Curral, Team Performance Management 22(5/6), 301 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Raghunathan, Decision Support Systems 26(4), 275 (1999)

    S. Raghunathan, Decision Support Systems 26(4), 275 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    Karimi, T.M

    J. Karimi, T.M. Somers, Y .P. Gupta, Information Systems Research15(2), 175 (2004)

    2004

  59. [67]

    Petter, W

    S. Petter, W. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Journal of Management Information Systems 29(4), 7 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    Simon, Models of man (Wiley, New York, 1957)

    H.A. Simon, Models of man (Wiley, New York, 1957)

    1957

  61. [69]

    Tversky, D

    A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Science 185(4157), 1124 (1974)

    1974

  62. [70]

    Eisenhardt, Academy of Management Journal 32(3), 543 (1989)

    K.M. Eisenhardt, Academy of Management Journal 32(3), 543 (1989)

    1989

  63. [71]

    Alexiev, H.W

    A.S. Alexiev, H.W. V olberda, F.A. Van den Bosch, Journal of Business Research69(2), 974 (2016)

    2016

  64. [72]

    S. Auh, B. Menguc, Journal of Business Research 58(12), 1652 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    Mirrlees, in Essays on economic behavior under uncertainty, ed

    J. Mirrlees, in Essays on economic behavior under uncertainty, ed. by M. Balch, D. McFadden, W. S. (Norh Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1974), pp. 243–261

    1974

  66. [74]

    Mirrlees, The Bell Journal of Economics 7(1), 105 (1976)

    J.A. Mirrlees, The Bell Journal of Economics 7(1), 105 (1976)

    1976

  67. [75]

    Rogerson, Econometrica 53(6), 1357 (1985)

    W.P. Rogerson, Econometrica 53(6), 1357 (1985)

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.