Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
informs
doi 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0217
2005 INFORMS
Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, fc26@columbia.edu
alespeople are the eyes and ears of the rms they serve. They possess market knowledge that is critical for
a wide range of decisions. A key question is how a rm can provide incentives to its salesforce so that it is
in their interest to truthfully disclose their information about the market and to work hard. Many people have
considered this question and provided solutions. Perhaps the most well-known solution is due to Gonik (1978),
who proposed and implemented a clever scheme designed to elicit market information and encourage hard
work. The purpose of this paper is to study Goniks scheme and compare it with a menu of linear contracts
a solution often used in the agency literaturein a model where the market information possessed by the
salesforce is important for the rms production and inventory-planning decisions.
Key words: salesforce; incentives; asymmetric information; screening; production planning
History: Accepted by Stefanos A. Zenios, special issue editor; received December 31, 2000. This paper was
with the author 7 months for 2 revisions.
1.
Introduction
1
Variations of the Gonik story are often taught in accounting and
marketing courses in business schools.
60
We consider a model in which a rm sells a single product through a single sales agent. The market
demand for the product depends on three factors: the
market condition, the selling effort by the agent, and
a random noise. The agent possesses private information about the market condition, and the selling
effort is not observable to the rm. The rm must
design a compensation scheme for the agent and
make production decisions for the product. Therefore,
the agents private information about the market condition, if revealed, benets the rm in two ways: It
increases the accuracy of the rms measurement of
the agents selling effort, and it reduces the demand
uncertainty, enabling the rm to better match supply with demand. The question is how the rm can
design a contract so as to maximize its expected prot,
anticipating that a production decision has to be made
after contract signing, but before demand realization.
After describing the model in detail, the paper
presents two benchmarks: an upper and a lower
bound on the rms achievable expected prot. The
upper bound is the rst-best solution: the rms maximum expected prot if the rm could observe both
the market condition and the agents selling effort.
The lower bound is obtained if the rm adopts a single linear contract, thus forgoing the opportunity to
learn about the market condition. Both of these benchmarks can be obtained in closed form.
This paper then proceeds to consider menu contracts. For a menu of linear contracts, the optimal
values of the contract parameters can be obtained
in closed form, leading to a simple calculation of
the rms optimal expected prot. For Goniks (1978)
menu of nonlinear contracts (taking his contract structure while ignoring his particular choices of parameter values), the problem becomes much harder.
However, based on several analytical results, we are
able to devise an efcient algorithm for computing
the optimal values of the contract parameters and the
corresponding expected prot for the rm. We then
compare these two solutions in a numerical experiment. Our results show that the Gonik solution is
dominated by a menu of linear contracts. This appears
to be due to the Gonik solutions inability to induce
different effort levels for different market conditions.
The numerical analysis also compares these solutions
with the above benchmarks and shows how the differences among these scenarios vary as some of the
model parameters change.
The salesforce compensation problem has been
widely studied in the marketing literature; see
Coughlan (1993) for a comprehensive review. Many
of the existing models assume, as is done here, that
the sales response function has a random noise term;
i.e., the total sales generated by a given level of selling effort is random. This, together with the fact that
61
62
single linear contract. Section 4 shows how an optimal menu of linear contracts can be determined in
closed form. Section 5 deals with the Gonik solution.
Section 6 presents the numerical results. Concluding
remarks are in 7.
2.
The Model
63
selling price be 1 + c (the prot margin is thus normalized to 1). To avoid trivial cases, assume p < c <
c < 1 + c.4 The rm makes contract as well as production decisions with the objective of maximizing
its expected prot (the principal is thus risk neutral).
If s is the contract signed by the agent, the rms
prot is
+
max
s aH aL
(1)
(2)
+ 1 EX sX a = aL = L G0
s.t. aH = as H
(IC-H)
aL = as L (IC-L)
EX sX a = aH = H
us H U0
(IR-H)
us L U0
(IR-L)
where the rst two constraints are incentive compatibility (IC) constraints indicating that the effort level
for each agent type is indeed optimal for the agent
(thus compatible with the agents objective), and the
remaining two constraints indicate that the agent,
regardless of his type, is better off participating relative to his outside opportunities, i.e., individual rationality (IR).
Now consider the separating case where the two
agent types choose different contracts. Let sH be the
contract chosen by the high type, and sL chosen by
the low type. Again, the principal can anticipate the
amount of selling effort under each type: aH = asH H
for the high type, and aL = asL L for the low type.
Unlike the pooling case, here the principal discovers the realized value of by observing the contract
choice made by the agent. If the agent chooses the
contract that is preferred by the high type (i.e., sH ),
then = H . Similarly, if sL is chosen, = L . Consequently, the principal can make more accurate production decisions. If sH is chosen, then X N aH +
H 2 , and thus the optimal production quantity is
QH = aH + H + q , where q is the minimizer of gq =
Ec pq + + c cq . Let G1 = gq ,
the minimum expected production/inventory costs if
sH is chosen. On the other hand, if sL is chosen,
then X N aL + L 2 , and the optimal production
quantity is thus QL = aL + L + q . In this case, the minimum expected production/inventory costs are again
G1 . An optimal menu of contracts can be found by
solving the following problem:
max
EX sH Xa = aH = H
+1 EX sL Xa = aL = L G1
s.t. aH = asH H
(IC-H)
(IC-HL)
64
usH H U0
usL L U0
(IR-H)
(IR-L)
where the rst two constraints are the incentive compatibility constraints for the agents effort choices, the
third and fourth constraints ensure that the agent
picks the contract that is intended for his type, and
the last two are the individual rationality constraints.
Implicit in the above formulation is that the two contracts, sH and sL , are distinct. Otherwise, G1 must
be replaced with G0 , and the formulation reduces to
the one under pooling. Also, if the agent is indifferent
between two contracts, we assume he chooses the one
intended for his type.
The following useful result is well known. When
the agents net income is normally distributed and
his utility function has the negative-exponential form,
his expected utility has a simple expression. Let Y
be the normally distributed net income. The agents
expected utility is thus EerY . The certainty equivalent of Y , denoted by CEY , is the xed net income
that provides the agent with a utility level equal to
EerY ; i.e., erCEY = EerY . It can be easily
veried that
CEY = 'Y 12 rY2
where 'Y is the mean of Y and Y2 the variance. Maximizing the expected utility is equivalent to maximizing the certainty equivalent.
3.
Two Benchmarks
ln U0 def
= w0 a
r
= H + a V a +
+ c cQ H a
= H + a V a +
ln U0
gQ H a
r
ln U0
G1
r
65
(2
1 r 2
2
(3)
ln U0
(2
1 r 2
2
r
= H L
s.t. (L + ) +
(2
ln U0
1 r 2
2
r
Note that the optimal solution must make the constraint binding; i.e.,
(2
ln U0
) = (L 1 r 2
2
r
Substituting this expression for ) in the rms objective function leads to a concave function of (. Maximizing it over ( 0, we obtain
( =
1
max!1 H L 0"
1 + r 2
It is interesting to note that when H L is sufciently large, the optimal solution is to offer the
agent a xed salary (with no incentive pay). Also
note that if H L = 0i.e., there is no uncertainty
about the market conditionthe rm always offers
a pay package with a positive commission rate. This
4.
(H )H (L )L
1 (H (H + H )H
+ 1 1 (L (L + L )L G1
1 r 2 2
(H
2
1 r 2 2
(L H + )L +
(L (IC-HL)
2
1 r 2 2
(L L + )L +
(L
2
1 r 2 2
(H L + )H +
(H (IC-LH)
2
1 r 2 2
(H H + )H +
(H
2
ln U0
(IR-H)
r
s.t. (H H + )H +
66
(L L + )L +
1 r 2 2
(L
2
ln U0
(IR-L)
r
The following observations signicantly simplify
the above optimization problem. First, the constraints
(IC-HL) and (IR-L) together imply (IR-H) because
H > L and (L 0. Thus, eliminate (IR-H). Second, in the reduced problem, observe that (IC-HL)
must hold as an equality, because otherwise one can
always decrease )H without violating the constraints,
and improve the principals payoff. Thus, change
the inequality in (IC-HL) to equality. Third, (IC-LH)
can be replaced with (H (L . To see this, note that
(IC-LH) (IC-HL) with equality + (IC-LH), i.e.
1r 2 2
1r 2 2
(H + (L L +)L +
(L
(H H +)H +
2
2
1r 2 2
(L H +)L +
(L
2
1r 2 2
+ (H L +)H +
(H
2
(H )H (L )L
s.t.
1 (H (H + H )H
+ 1 1 (L (L + L )L G1
1 r 2 2
(H
2
1 r 2 2
(L (IC-HL)
= (L H + )L +
2
1 r 2 2
ln U0
(L L + )L +
(L =
(IR-L)
2
r
(H (L
(H H + )H +
ln U0
1 r 2 2
+ (L H L (H H
(H
r
2
(H (L 0
(L =
max 1
L 0
1 + r 2
1 H
(H =
1
1 + r 2
1
max!1 H L 0"
1 + r 2
67
5.
x+
s (x/F )
s (x/F )
v
u
where
(6)
z
.
+ ru
/z = e
1
2
z + rv
+ erv(z+ 2 rv .
ru(z+ 12 ru2
68
r(z
and
2
(7)
z
+ ru
z
rvz+ 12 rv2
r( ve
.
+ rv
z
1
2
= rervz u (eruvz+ 2 ru .
+ ru
z
1
rv2
2
( ve
+ rv (8)
.
1
z
+ ru
z
rvz+ 12 rv2
+e
.
+ rv
1
(9)
where sx = (x +) because the utility function is concave (for the rst inequality) and sx F sx for all
x and F (for the second inequality). As we saw earlier, EersXF V a = erV a(a er(r) /z. Combining this inequality with (9), we have /z 1 for
all z.
Theorem 2. z is increasing in (, but decreasing in u
and v.
Proof. From (7) and the quasi convexity of /, we
know z is the solution to
r(f2 z + f2 z = 0
As ( increases to ( , r( f2 z + f2 z < 0. To make
this inequality an equality, the quasi convexity of /
implies that z must be increased.
To show that z is decreasing in u, take the derivative of r(f2 z + f2 z with respect to u (using the
expression in (8)):
z
1
2
reruz+ 2 ru .
+ ru
(10)
z
2
ruz+ 12 ru2
+ ru (rz + r ue
.
+ ru
(11)
z
1
2
+ ru (eruz+ 2 ru ,
+ ru r
(12)
The term (10) is clearly positive. Now consider the
sign of the sum of (11) and (12) (and ignore the com1
2
mon term ru (eruz+ 2 ru because it is positive).
Note that
z
z
rz + r2 u.
+ ru + ,
+ ru r
z
z
z
= r
+ ru .
+ ru + ,
+ ru
> 0
where the last inequality follows because w.w +
,w > 0 for any w. (To see the latter, just show that
the function of w is increasing and tends to 0 as
69
z/
z/
y z,y dy =
z
z z
.
,
erV a
and
(a
erV a
70
ln U0 ln /z
(
(L
+
+ ( vz
2
r
r
z
z
z
.
+,
(13)
u v
( + (
max!er(z++a+)uz 2 ru
er(z++a+)vz 2 rv "
1
def
= max eru(z+ 2 ru erv(z+ 2 rv 4
(15)
2 ru
eru(z+
= y0
and
erv(z+ 2 rv = y0
and
z=
to arrive at
z =
ln y0 12 ru2
ru (
ln y0 12 rv2
rv (
71
w.w 1
+
f w = 2w.w + ,w = 2,w
,w
2
ru(z+ 12 ru2
.
1 2
2 r u + v
+,
(18)
Now consider the problem of minimizing (18) over
u and v. If we keep u + v constant and decrease
v (thus increase u), the above expression decreases
because w.w + ,w > 0 for all w. Setting v = 0, we
have a new lower bound:
u 12 ru. 12 ru + , 12 ru
Letting w = 12 ru, the above lower bound can be
written as
2
ww.w + ,w
(19)
r
Lemma 1. Dene f w = ww.w + ,w for all w.
Then, f is quasi-convex. Moreover, f w is minimized
at w 06 with f 06 01.
(2
ln U0 02
(L
2
r
r
6(
= + ( G1
(2
ln U0 02
(L
( + (
2
r
r
(2
ln U0 02
= 1 ( + ( G1 +
+ (L +
+
2
r
r
This upper bound is a concave, quadratic function of (. Let 60 be a feasible value of the rms
expected prot. Dene ( = min!(5 6(
60 " and ( =
max!(5 6(
72
6.
Numerical Examples
Number of Examples
25
20
15
10
5
0
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20%
(Gonik Linear)/Gonik
From Gonik Solution to a Menu of Linear Contracts
Number of Examples
25
20
15
10
5
0
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20%
(Menu Gonik)/Menu
Number of Examples
Figure 2
25
20
15
10
5
0
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20%
(FB Menu)/FB
73
Figure 3
12%
10%
10%
8%
8%
6%
6%
4%
4%
2%
2%
0%
0%
1
0.2
theta_combination
12%
0.8
12%
10%
10%
8%
8%
6%
6%
4%
4%
2%
2%
0%
0.5
sigma
0.5
1.0
2.0
0%
0.2
risk aversion
Gonik vs. Single Linear
0.5
0.8
7.
Concluding Remarks
Gonik (1978) said it well when he described the objectives all managers are shooting for in a complex sales
environment:
First, they want to pay salesmen for their absolute sales
volume. Second, they want to pay them for their effort,
even if they are in tough areas where they will sell
less. Third, they want good and fresh eld information
on market potential for planning and control purposes.
(p. 118)
74
References
Agrawal, V., S. Seshadri. 2000. Impact of uncertainty and risk aversion on price and order quantity in the newsvendor problem.
Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 2(4) 410423.
Basu, A., R. Lal, V. Srinivasan, R. Staelin. 1985. Salesforce-compensation plans: An agency theoretic perspective. Marketing Sci.
4(4) 267291.
Chen, F. 2000. Salesforce incentives and inventory management.
Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 2(2) 186202.
Coughlan, A. 1993. Salesforce compensation: A review of MS/OR
advances. J. Eliashberg, G. Lilien, eds. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Marketing, Vol. 5.
North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
75