Taking the "I" out of "Team": Intra-Firm Monitoring and the Content of Fiduciary Duties

By Talley, Eric | Journal of Corporation Law, Summer 1999 | Go to article overview

Taking the "I" out of "Team": Intra-Firm Monitoring and the Content of Fiduciary Duties


Talley, Eric, Journal of Corporation Law


I. INTRODUCTION

Depending on whom one asks, the last decades' proliferation of statutory business structures is a cause for either celebration or concern. Some laud this recent trend, arguing that a highly permutated menu of tax treatments, liability limitations, and governance hierarchies facilitates the alignment of legal status with organizational need. Others view statutory variety more skeptically, warning that it may simply portend greater cost externalization, strategic behavior, and distributional inequity.1 But one set of legal doctrines has persisted throughout: the concept of fiduciary duty. Indeed, fiduciary obligations remain fundamental to the legal governance structure of virtually every statutory business entity.

That said, the precise normative relationship between fiduciary standards and organizational form remains highly contested. A number of courts and commentators maintain that fiduciaries of "closely-held" firms (e.g., close corporations and partnerships) should be subject to substantially more onerous fiduciary obligations than their counterparts in public corporations.2 Lacking the convenient exit options and the external discipline provided by well-developed securities markets, the argument goes, owners of closely-held firms must rely exclusively (or nearly so) on fiduciary duties to check managerial opportunism. Critics have challenged this view, pointing out that the larger ownership stake typically possessed by fiduciaries of closely-held firms requires them to bear a substantial share of the costs from their own managerial decisions.3 Moreover, such firms frequently comprise participants with long-standing (and even familial) relationships-a source of repeat interaction that facilitates the formation of extra-legal behavioral norms to stem managerial misfeasance.4 Consequently, these critics contend, the categorical case for strict legal duties within closely-held structures is far from compelling.

In the pages below, I endeavor to revisit this governance debate, albeit through a slightly different lens: the "team-production" theory of the firm. In its most basic form, the team-production account spotlights the observation that productive activities within many economic organizations require coordinated, fim-specific investments from two or more participants. (Stronger forms of this account posit that team structures are pervasive within commercial activity, and are in fact the defining characteristic of all multi-person firms).5 Although the team-production model is enjoying renewed popularity within numerous industrial and academic realms,6 it poses particular challenges for organizational governance issues. Indeed, the output produced by a team is frequently non-separable in nature, a characteristic that frustrates attempts to deduce ex post the contributions of individual team members.7 In turn, this form of non-contractibility can exacerbate problems of strategic behavior, reducing the overall productive capacity of the team.8 But within this quagmire of opportunism lies a potentially important role for law. Appropriately-crafted default legal rules can mollify team-production dilemmas by reshaping the incentive structure faced by team members to enhance the well-being and productivity of the firm's participants.

So animated, a team-production approach can inject helpful new insights into the existing debate over the relationship between organizational structure and fiduciary obligation. This Article explores one such insight. Explicitly, I argue that imposing enhanced fiduciary duties on closely-held firms may actually be counter-productive once one accounts for the strategic effects that enhanced duties can have on the members of a productive team. In fact, I shall argue, these strategic effects can be sufficiently grave to undermine the aggregate productivity of the team, thereby justifying fiduciary duties in at least some closely-held firms that are weaker than those that govern widely-held organizations.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Taking the "I" out of "Team": Intra-Firm Monitoring and the Content of Fiduciary Duties
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.