Essays on The Role of Agency Theory as a Contributory Factor to the Crisis Literature review

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "The Role of Agency Theory as a Contributory Factor to the Crisis" is a great example of a literature review on management. In 2007, the lives of people all over the world were affected by the global economic crisis. Millions of individuals lost their life savings and mortgages as years of unethical practices in the US financial sector finally caught up with the perpetrators. In this paper, I argue that the management crisis precipitating the near-global collapse of the financial system referred to as the Global financial crisis was a consequence of the propagation of faulty management theory.

Among these management theories that are at the center of this crisis include Agency theory. According to Ghoshal (2005), the central assumption of Agency theory that an organization exists to maximize shareholder value remains intact although the agency has been called into question by other dominant managerial ideologies. Ghoshal (2005) analyzes agency theory and links it to the Global financial crisis accusing its dominance in management education and practice as the root cause of the global financial crisis. This paper seeks to analyze the role of agency theory as a contributory factor to the crisis.

The paper starts with an analysis of the agency theory and its underlying assumption. Secondly, it critically analyzes agency theory by using literature that has reviewed and assessed the agency theory, noting various gaps in the theory as dominant management thought. Thirdly, the paper presents organizational theory and stewardship theory as alternative theories that can help organizations overcome the shortcomings of the agency theory. Further, the paper gives the possible implication of the literature reviewed in the study and practice of management in the future.

Unlike, Ghoshal (2005) who advocates for a radical change of the management curricula, the paper concludes that Agency theory should be integrated with other theories of management to purge the theory to practice gaps noted in the theory.


Albrecht, W. S., Albrecht, C. C., & Albrecht, C. O 2004, Fraud and corporate executives: Agency, stewardship and broken trust, Journal of Forensic Accounting, Vol. 5, pp. 109-130.

Daily, D, Dalton, D. & Cannella, Jr, A., 2003, Corporate Governance: Decades of Dialogue & Data, Academy of Management Review, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 317-406.

Davis, J, Schoorman, F. & Donaldson, L., 1997, Towards a Stewardship Theory of Management, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 20-47.

Donaldson, L. 1990, The ethereal Hand: Organizational Economics & Management Theory, Academy of Management Review, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 369-381

Eisenhardt, K., 1989, Agency Theory: An assessment & Review, Academy of Management Review, Vol 14, no. 1, pp. 57-74.

Ghoshal, S. 2005, Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Practices, Academy of Management Learning and Education. Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 75-91.

Hosmer, L. T 1995, Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics, Academy of management Review, 20 (2), 379-403.

Jensen, M, & Meckling, W 1976, Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3, pp. 305–360.

Kim, K. I., Park, H. J., & Suzuki, N 1990, Reward allocations in the United States, Japan, and Korea: A comparison of individualistic and collectivistic cultures, Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 188-198.

Lan, L. & Heracleous, L. 2010, Rethinking Agency Theory: the View from Law, Academy of Management Review, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 294-314.

Martnov, A 2009, Agents or Stewards? Linking Managerial Behavior & Moral Development, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 90, no 2, pp 239-249.

Mintzberg, H, & Gosling, J 2002, Educating managers beyond borders, Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 1, No, 1, pp. 64–76.

Mitroff, I 2004, An Open letter to the Deans & the Faculties of American Business Schools’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 54, no. 2, pp 185-189.

Ofori-Dankwa, J & Julian, SD 2005, From thought to theory to school: the role of contextual factors in the evolution of schools of management thought, Organization Studies, 26 (9), 1307-1329.

Pfeffer, J & Fong, CT 2002, The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 78 –95.

Pfeffer, J 1993, Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable, .Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 599–620.

Piderit, S. K 2000, Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change, Academy of management review, 25 (4), 783-794.

Sims, R & Brinkmann, J. 2003, ‘Enron Ethics (Or: Culture matters more than Code)’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 45, no. 3, pp. 243-256.

Tranfield, D., & Starkey, K 1998, The nature, social organization and promotion of management research: towards policy, British Journal of Management, 9 (4), 341-353.

Ungston, G, & Steers, R 1984, Motivation and Politics in Executive Compensation, Academy of Management Review, vol. 9, pp. 313-323

Walsh, J, Weber, K & Margolis, J 2003, Social Issues & Management: Our Lost Cause found, Journal of Management, vol 29, no.6, pp. 859-881.

Watson, S 2006, Management Education as if Both Matter: A Response to Jonathan Gosling & Henry Mintzberg’, Management Learning, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 429-431.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us