SUMMARYIn the course of the introductory analysis (chapter one), it was observed that an agent, is someone who brings another person called the principal into contractual relationship with third parties. An agent is a person who is given the authority by the principal to enter into a contract on his behalf.

            Therefore, agency theory provides the framework for discussing the relationship that exists between the various interest groups in an organization. It views the firm as a composite unite consisting of separate group advocates it own interest and ensures it stands at an advantageous position in relation to the firm. The theory brings out a clear exposition of the actions of some managers who are not in shareholders and maximization objective is therefore pursued.
Unfortunately the agent who suppose to uphold the principle of fiduciary duty, a duty which includes the avoidance of conflict of interest and not to take secret profit, secret reward or secret commission or a bride, now revel in self interest pursuer putting in place management that services most a time the self interest that seem to be their paramount objectives as against the over all objectives of the firm. Thereby having goal divergent as against goal congruence.
            A principal is the person who employs another person called, agent to act on his behalf.
Management in all business and organization activities is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively. The managerial function of controlling is the measurement and correction of the performance of activities of subordinate in order to make sure that all levels of objectives and the plan devised to action them  are being accomplished.
            As a result of these observation and experiences the author of this project has undertaken this research to find out how, agency relationships can impact positively on the management control system so as to ensure shareholders wealth maximization. Thus, these studies very carefully pained out the similarities and more importantly the differences between previous researches and the current study.
            The instrument employed for the data collection were questionnaires. The respondents included SMEs with and those without agency relationship. Based on the analysis made at end of each table chapter 4, the researcher summarizes that majority of small and medium scale business are without agency relationship in Abi L. G. A of Cross River State. The result of collaborate assertion that there is a significant effect of agency relationship on the operations of small and medium scale business in Abi L. G. A of Cross River State. Again, it was established that agency relationship has impacted positively on management system even as management override has greatly reduced. The result of table 4-4 attested to this.                         
The study of the implication of agency relationship on the operations of SMEs have been quite revealing. It clearly points out that Agency relationship is critical in maximizing business gains in particular and cooperate administration in general. Although the study is limited to small and medium scale enterprises, it can produce an amazing result if conducted on cooperate organizations both in the cooperate business world and in government.

The following recommendations are found necessary for government, Business Organizations and researchers.
(i)        Government should evolve deliberate policies to develop small and medium scale enterprises as they constitute the bedrock of micro economic development in the state.
(ii)       Government should promote accent to credit for SMEs through continuous funding of the bank of industries (BOI).
(iii)     A tax regime that favours SMES should be put in place as a matter of urgency to arrest the imminent collapse of SMEs in the State.
(vi)      Agency theory approach to business management should be embraced by all corporate business especially those registered in the corporate Affairs Commission.

This research was limited to small and Medium Scale Enterprises. I therefore recommend that interested researchers wishing to investigate the implication of Agency theory should consider Public Limited Companies (PLC) for an expanded knowledge.

Abrams, F.W, “Management’s Responsibilities in complex Word” Harvard Business Review 29, 1951, pp. 29-34.
Adamson, S., “The Esop As an employee Benefit: Its impact on firm value”, Benefits quarterly 9,.1993, pp. 55-64.
Anayamwu, J., Monetary Economic: Theory, Policy and Institutions. 1993, Hybrid Publishes, Nigeria.
Anthony, R. N. et al Management control System London; Richard d. iroin Inc, 5523 p. 1989.
Anumaka N.M. Management Account and control Aba; Matik Education Books (MEB) 2000 8771p.
Asika, N. (1991) Research methodology in Behavioural Sciences Ikeja, Longman Nigeria. 480 p.
Bryce J. and Nicholas H.A. (eds). Public Finance 1994, Liacholium.
Bum, P. and Derohurst, J. (1989) Small-business and entrepreneurship London; Macmillan. 580p.
Cochran, P. and R. Wood, “Corporate social Responsibility of financial performance”, Academy of management Journal 27, March 1984, pp. 42-56.
Conte, M and  Kruse D. “Esops and Protit- sharing plans: do they Link employee pay to company performance”, Financial management 20, winter 1991, pp. 91-100.
Errunza, V. and Senbet, L. “The effects of International operations on the market value of the firm. Theory and Evidence discussion”, journal of Finance 36, may 1981, pp. 401.
Florkowski, G. and Shastri, K. “Stock-price response to protit sharing in unionized settings”, Journal of labor Research 13, fall 1992, pp. 407-420.
Hill, D and T. Jones, “Stakeholder-Agency Theory”, Journal of Management studies 29, March, 1992 pp. 131-154.
Jensen, I and Meakling W. “Theory of the firm”. Managerial Behaviour Agency cots, and ownership structure Journal of Financial Economics  3 1976 pp. 305-360.
Kratvetz, D, “Increase Finances through progressive management”, Magazine 36, February 1991 pp. 57-62.
Kumbhakar, S. and Dunbar, “the Elusive Esop-productivity Link: Evidence Fran U.S. firm. Level Data”, Journal of public Economic 52, September 1993 pp. 273-283.
Lang, L.G, R.M, Stultz and Walking, “A test of the free cash flow Hypothesis. The case  of the Bidder Returns”, Journal of Financial Economics 29, 1991 pp. 315-335.
Lehn, K. and Poulsen, A. “Free Cash flow and Stockholder Grains in Going private Transactions”, Journal of Finance 44, 1989 pp. 771-789.
Lipsea R.G. An introduction of positive Economics 1963. Kedentied and Nicholson, London.
Taro, V. (1964) Statistic; An introductory analysis 3rd Edition New York: Harpers and Row Publishers, 7728 p.
Thonadakis, S. “A value based Test of profitability and market structure’, Review of Economics and statistics 59 May 1977 pp. 179-185.
Ukoha, N. “Small Enterprises; A discourse in Development dynamics” Being a paper presented at the seminar organise by the Financial students Association, University of Port Harcourt, 1989 April p. 5.
Van H. J.C. Financial management and policy New Delhi; prentice – Hall of India private Limited,  1988 p 3881.
Wolf, F “Environmental Responsibility, stake holder theory, and the value of the firm”, Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University Department of Finance (1993).

Definitions of Terms  
            The researcher wishes to define certain terms which to him could assist the reader in understanding the study.
1.         Agent:            An agent is some one who enter into contractual relationship with another person called the principal,
2.         Agency: “agency” is defined as relationship between the principal and the agent.
3.         Principal: A principal is “a person who, being sui juris, that is, of legal capacity, employ some one else to do an act which “he or she is competent himself to do”
4.         Agency Relationship: A relationship in which a principal engages an agent to perform some service on his or her behalf’s this involves delegating authority by the principal.
5.         Fiduciary Duty: This includes a duty to avoid conflict of interest and not to take secret profits, secret reward or secret commission or a bride.
6.         System: A system has been defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as simply “a set or assemblage of things connected, or interdependent, so as to form a complex unity; a whole composed of parts in orderly arrangement according to some scheme or plan”. .
7.         Corporate government: Is defines corporate government as the process, structures and relationships through which the Board of Directors oversees what the executives do to achieve the objective of the company.  
Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin