2.4 The paradox of control

Tighter controls have often resulted in greater resistance and from a behavioural perspective, management controlling should be seen as a social process that has interactive parts and can have negative effects. This book will focus on the behavioural aspect. Some targets and controls are motivating while others de-motivate which makes it important to try to understand why they go each way.

Controlling refers to ensuring conformity with plans and targets:

“A process of monitoring performance and taking actions to ensure intended or desired results” — Baird, Post and Mahon, 1990, p.454

“Any process in which a person or group of persons determines, that is, intentionally affects, what another person or group will do” — Tannebaum, 1962, p.2

But why do you need it?

“Control, like a ship’s rudder, keeps the organisation moving in the proper direction” — Barney, 1992, p379

There is both horizontal and vertical control and it is many times used by superiors to as a demonstration of their competence as they should their “authority”. Child (1977) suggests that control works best with clear reason and objective to justify it. In that sense it is important to review objectives of departments and see how these objectives translate into individual goals/targets and which controls are in place for these.

The control process works like this:

1\. Establish strategic objective

2\. Establish standards of performance

3\. Measure actual performance

4\. Compare performance to standards

If inadequate -> 5.1 Take corrective action

If adequate -> 5.2 Do nothing or provide reinforcement

Remember that goals should be SMART and that each of the above steps influences behaviour as people might try to find a way “out” of the measures. Also remember to keep the full picture in mind and try not to have a favourite measurement. Include many sources if possible, including qualitative data. If you need to take action, again, full picture, and think about changing the targets in line with what you learned.

The reality of all of this is messier and more socially embedded and highly conditional upon social expectation, social relationships and social meanings. The devil is in the detail and has a major influence on acceptance of controls. You can have the four stages in place but still fail due to other problems.

Types of control include:

\- Direct supervision: Management by walking around (MBWA) might be problematic and susceptible to allegations of bullying. Sometimes it is a built in formal requirement.

\- Technical controls: impersonal, embedded in technology, e.g. assembly line. Technology might be designed to secure compliance with planned procedures (call centre staff recorded, computer logging,). Too high control will result in high labour turnover and difficulties in recruitment.

\- Administrative controls: formal rules, budgets, job categories, promotion procedures, job responsibilities. Some of this is changing from having lots of layers in a company leading to lots of potential steps to go up and lots of bonuses. Now layers collapsed and new controls needed. Also for budgets, these are more and more done with agreement of employees. (They need to share their views, not agree).

Post modern forms of control put a premium not on obedience and conformity but on commitment, responsiveness and flexibility (TQM, Business excellence, psychological contract). A lot of focus is put on recruitment, selection, induction, appraisal, promotion and a rewards system. But critics point out that this is making more demands on the psyche.

Classical controlsPost-modern controlsMass, standardised productionflexible, multi-batch productionhierarchical, bureaucraticflax, flexible, decentralisedAdministrative controlsNormative controlsInstitutional controlsIdentity Controlinsecurity based on collective injusticeinsecurity based on individual self-doubt

All this needs a more organic control system to enable rapid informed responses with employee empowerment. Current companies are moving away from the mechanic (fragmentation of tasks, supervision, precise definition, instruction, vertical control,) to the organic (specialist knowledge, adjustment of tasks, flexible, wide roles, horizontal and network control,) control.

This makes the psychological contract very important especially if people are self-controlling.

There is a distinct difference between the abstract model and the implementation which can be seen in the vicious cycle of control in which a manager perceives a need for control, imposes tighter control, employees become resentful and withhold discretionary effort, which brings further decline, which brings more control and more resistance … all this might undermine the moral and effectiveness of an organisation. There is research though that, for example in Britain, there is a positive correlation between certain controls and satisfaction.

Tannebaum argued that the amount of control is not a fixed-sum game, meaning that you can have more control but also give more opportunities for participation and influence. Controls need leadership to be understood and if there are deficiencies, e.g. in the clarity of the job description, then these need to be fixed first. The wider social system needs to be taken into account.