Agency Theory Applied to Military and Corporate Management
This paper examines agency theory as a framework for understanding organizational conflict and governance in both military and corporate contexts. It analyzes how civilian oversight of the military mirrors principal-agent relationships found in corporate governance, while noting key differences in accountability structures, goals, and stakeholder obligations. The paper traces the chain of accountability from military leadership through elected officials to American citizens, explores how formal chains of command affect agency problems, and compares the motivations behind power abuses in military versus corporate settings. Ultimately, the paper argues that the similarities between military and corporate agency problems are more pronounced than their differences.
- Introduction to Agency Theory in Organizational Contexts: Agency theory applies to both military and corporate sectors
- Civilian Oversight and the Military Principal-Agent Relationship: Civilians monitor military; citizens are ultimate agents
- Chains of Command and Structural Parallels with Corporate Organizations: Military and corporate hierarchies generate similar agency problems
- Divergent Goals and Stakeholder Obligations in Military vs. Corporate Settings: Corporate and military goals differ; power abuses take different forms
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper applies a well-established theoretical framework — agency theory — to two distinct organizational types, allowing for structured comparison throughout.
- It builds outward logically, starting with the direct military principal-agent relationship and expanding to include citizens as ultimate agents, demonstrating analytical depth.
- Citations are well integrated to support specific claims rather than used as mere decoration, lending credibility to comparative assertions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative institutional analysis: it takes a single theoretical lens (agency theory) and systematically applies it to two different organizational contexts — military and corporate — to reveal both structural similarities and contextual differences. This technique is effective because it uses the framework to do analytical work rather than simply describing each institution in isolation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing agency theory's cross-sector applicability, then narrows to the military context and its civilian oversight mechanisms. It next examines how formal hierarchies in both military and corporate settings generate similar agency problems. The final section pivots to key differences — particularly divergent goals and stakeholder relationships — before concluding that similarities ultimately outweigh differences. The progression moves from general theory to specific comparison to nuanced qualification.
Introduction to Agency Theory in Organizational Contexts
Agency theory can be helpful for understanding any organizational conflict or behavior, and applies equally well to the private and public sectors. Applied to the military organization, agency theory "offers insight into how military strategies relate to political objectives," an important consideration (Petrina, 2005, p. v). When applied to the corporate world, agency theory also offers insight into how executive decisions are made and how executives can become corrupt when they possess significant power and separation from agents or shareholders. There are differences in corporate versus military governance and organizational culture, but those differences do not obscure the essential applicability of agency theory to both the private and public sectors.
Civilian Oversight and the Military Principal-Agent Relationship
A traditional view of agency theory as it applies to military organizations is that "civilians set oversight measures to monitor the behavior of the military and the military responds based on the probability of its behavior being discovered and its expectation of punishment from civilian leadership" (Petrina, 2005, p. v). Civilian leadership is defined in part as agents in the federal government, including both the executive and legislative branches, and to a lesser degree the judicial branch. A hierarchical organizational structure potentially minimizes conflicts of interest, as principals operate within a tightly controlled framework with little personal leeway in decision-making.
Things become more complicated when the concept of agency theory is expanded outward from the federal government to reveal that the actual agents are the citizens of the United States. Military leadership is not subject to public election, but congressional and presidential leadership absolutely is, making the military indirectly accountable to the public. At the same time, the military's role in protecting national security means that its operations are by definition not necessarily public knowledge, and so communication and decision-making occur without full public oversight.
References
Besley, T. J., & Ghatak, M. (2014). Solving agency problems. Retrieved from http://thred.devecon.org/papers/2014/2014-001_Ghatak_Solving_Agency_Problems.pdf
Chen, C. X., Lu, H., & Sougiannis, T. (2011). The agency problem, corporate governance, and the asymmetrical behavior of selling, general, and administrative costs. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 252–282.
Petrina, G. E. (2005). An agency theory view of the military advisor. Thesis presented to the Faculty of the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a477032.pdf
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.