The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Behavioral Agency Theory: New Foundations for Theorizing About Executive Compensation
Abstract
This article describes new micro-foundations for theorizing about executive compensation, drawing on the behavioral economics literature and based on a more realistic set of behavioral assumptions than those that have typically been made by agency theorists. We call these micro-foundations “behavioral agency theory.” In contrast to the standard agency framework, which focuses on monitoring costs and incentive alignment, behavioral agency theory places agent performance at the center of the agency model, arguing that the interests of shareholders and their agents are most likely to be aligned if executives are motivated to perform to the best of their abilities. We develop a line of argument first advanced by Wiseman and Gomez-Mejia and put the case for a more general reassessment of the behavioral assumptions underpinning agency theory. A model of economic man predicated on bounded rationality is proposed, adopting Wiseman and Gomez-Mejia’s assumptions about risk preferences, but incorporating new assumptions about time discounting, inequity aversion, and the trade-off between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. We argue that behavioral agency theory provides a better framework for theorizing about executive compensation, an enhanced theory of agent behavior, and an improved platform for making recommendations about the design of executive compensation plans.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766
An introduction to cybernetics
Ashby, W. R. (1956) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5851 · Cited by 7,578
Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education
Becker, G. S. (1993) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226041223.001.0001 · Cited by 4,509
Integrating Theories of Motivation
Steel, P., & König, C. J. (2006) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2006.22527462 · Cited by 776 · cited 8×
“Steel and König have emphasized the importance of consilience in theory development, arguing that “if a theory can be shown to have consilience, its scientific validity is vastly improved, since it represents different avenues of inquiry coming to similar conclusions” (Steel & König, 2006: 889).”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
“The more we share, the more we have”? Analyses of knowledge sharing by key account managers
Peters, L. D. K. (2024) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2024.04.006 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Pepper, A., & Gore, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-09-27
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1045-1068
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W2032952193
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 29.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Behavioral Agency Theory: New Foundations for Theorizing About Executive Compensation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0149206312461054
- The paper
- Pepper, A., & Gore, J. (2015). Behavioral Agency Theory: New Foundations for Theorizing About Executive Compensation. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312461054
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.