The Triangle Principal-Agent Model
Reading about the triangle principal agent model is
reminding me of one of my favorite pieces of theatre that I’ve seen over the
last few years. Originally starring James Corden (now a late night tv host), One Man, Two Guvnors, which itself is
based on an Italian commedia dell’arte entitled
The Servant of Two Masters. Both
versions revolve around a lower class young man who finds himself in the employ
of two different people, who are at odds with one another. The comedy in the
plays extend from the extreme measures in which he has to go to in order to keep
them from finding out about his employment for the other, as each would
question his loyalty and the motives behind his actions. In One Man, Two Guvnors, the people he is
working for also happen to be involved in illegal activity, which further
complicates the moral hazards.
Now, most people don’t tend to find themselves indentured to
rival mobsters, but they can often find themselves in situations where they
serve sometimes competing agendas. In my RSO, I wear a lot of different hats, I’m
the President of the Board, and sometimes have to use that authority to put a
little pressure on people, I’m also an actor in a production, which makes me
liable to listen to that show’s director and not overstep my own bounds.
Balancing different hats is difficult, where in the same situation I have to
keep in mind both of the ones I wear. I think the easiest example of this from
my own experience was when I was working as a director earlier in the semester.
As a director, I essentially acted as the agent to two
separate principals: the Board of Directors, and my own cast. The Board sets an
expectation of a certain quality of performance (output), along with a certain
budget, and to some small extent, a certain style of running a show. They’re
usually not intimately involved with the process, but can wield a lot of sway
should it go awry. A few recent productions have essentially been taken over by
the Board when their directors have slacked or otherwise were underperforming.
On the other hand, as a director I was also responsible for a cast of actors, who
in their own right acted like eight separate principals for me to work for as
well. Actors can be a bit finnicky as I’ve well determined: some don’t like
their role and thus aren’t intrinsically motivated to work hard for the
production, others are in over their head and need help memorizing what they’re
supposed to do onstage. The cast, in general, would prefer as little rehearsal time
for a certain level of quality as possible, the Board, in general, would love
to see as much rehearsal time and the highest quality show as can be. The
actors see good performance from me as having a fun experience on the show, the
Board sees a good performance from me as putting on a good show, and those can
sometimes be competing agendas.
Therein lay the crux of my own dilemma, and it was one that
I perhaps didn’t handle so well. In the matter of rehearsal time, I tended to side
with the Board principal, over my cast. By the end of the production, I was
experiencing tardiness and absenteeism to a very large degree. In the end, the
production ended up an artistic success, but a financial and social failure, in
large part, I believe, because I wasn’t able to effectively balance the two sets
of principals I was working for. I had chosen to follow the directives of the one
that I felt held more sway over me, the Board, and thus neglected the needs of
the other principal.
If I were to do things differently, I would have balanced
the needs of my cast in with my Board’s (and my own expectations). To some
extent I was seen as a bit of a taskmaster, and I think adding in some leeway
during the process, and dialoguing with the cast about their needs earlier and
more often would have helped me better balance my two guvnors.
I could use some more background or your store. Are the board members and the actors all students? I'm guessing that, but you weren't explicit about it so I'm not sure. Further, do these people have some expertise in the job - perhaps the actors are majoring in theater, for example, or is that not the case? I don't know what expertise is required to be on the Board, but relevant prior experience might matter.
ReplyDeleteWhy does this occur to me as a reader? People who are less knowledgeable about theater production might have unrealistic expectations, making the entire enterprise harder to navigate. Alternatively, even in Hollywood productions, I'm aware that there can be tensions because the stars can be intensely egotistical. (As an aside, since I told the call that my sister was in the movies, I recall once being at her apartment in New York, where she was on the phone with Charles Grodin, who was apologizing intensely to my sister because Marlo Thomas had some sort of fit and then started acting quite unprofessionally.) Thus, I have at least that one incident not reported in the tabloids to know the egos can be a problem on occasion.
On another student's post, I mentioned that the person in the middle needs some buffer to manage the situation. Not understanding the issues in your case, I can't suggest what that buffer might be. But that one is needed seems evident.
Your personal experience sounds like a great example for highlighting the complexities of the triangle principal-agent model. What I found interesting was that, even as the director, you placed yourself in the position of the agent, serving dual-principals of your board of directors and your cast. Generally, we think of the director as being in charge, but I like the feature of mutual accountability you describe.
ReplyDeleteYou mention that, if you could do things differently, you would balance the needs of your cast with the board better. While I agree this might have eased some of the frustration from your cast, I’m not sure if balance is always a sustainable solution. Sometimes, as the director in charge, you must make decisions in the best interest of the organizational goals and accept that not everyone may agree with you.
While I’d imagine everyone in your arrangement had a similar goal, to produce an excellent product (i.e. put on a great show) the differing motivations for each involved principal or agent is what really places strain on these triangle arrangements.