Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:07:04.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Toward a theory of relational control: how relationship structure influences the choice of controls

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Laurie J. Kirsch
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Vivek Choudhury
Affiliation:
University of Cincinnati
Sim B. Sitkin
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Laura B. Cardinal
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Greg Milstead, the operations manager of a four-store John Deere dealership, wants employees at his stores to meet specific sales and marketing targets. Traditionally, he would set monthly targets and assess, at month-end, whether employees met the targets. Employees themselves would have only a general sense during the month of whether they were on track to meet the goals. As a control system, this approach has its limitations as the ability to take corrective action during the month is constrained by the lack of information for the manager and his employees. Recognizing a need for a better control system, Milstead championed the implementation of an information system to provide the employees with real-time information about how well they were progressing toward the monthly goals. The system proved a great success in providing employees precise knowledge of goals and their progress. In addition, it facilitated an unexpected change in the way in which control is enacted. Control no longer rests solely with the manager. Employees have become much more proactive in determining how to achieve the goals, and in ensuring that the goals are reached. Moreover, given the transparency provided by the information system, employees now can see how their peers in other stores are progressing against the same targets. This visibility has become a mechanism for encouraging desired behavior, as employees who see they lag behind others have become more motivated to determine how to improve their own performance. Thus, employees and manager have become partners in the exercise of control.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bigley, G. A. and Roberts, K. H. 2001. The incident command system: high-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6): 1,281–1,299.Google Scholar
Cardinal, L. B. 2001. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12 (1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinal, L. B., Sitkin, S. B., and Long, C. P. 2004. Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organization Science, 15 (4): 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, J. and McGrath, R. G. 2001. Organizations unfettered: organizational form in an information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6): 1,135–1,148.Google Scholar
Choudhury, V. and Sabherwal, R. 2003. Portfolios of control in outsourced software development projects. Information Systems Research, 14 (3): 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, T. K. and Teng, B. 1998. Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3): 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1985. Control: organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31 (2): 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P. 1990. Relativity within moose (“mossi”) culture: four incommensurable models for social relationships. Ethos, 18: 180–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortado, B. 1994. Informal supervisory social control strategies. Journal of Management Studies, 31 (2): 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govindarajan, V. and Fisher, J. 1990. Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: effects on business-unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2): 259–285.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. C. and Lee, S. 1992. Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective. Management Science, 38 (6): 757–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, B. J. 1988. Toward a theory of marketing control: environmental context, control types, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52: 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, B. J., Stathakopoulos, V. and Krishnan, H. S. 1993. Control combinations in marketing: conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 57: 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, L. J. 1996. The management of complex tasks in organizations: controlling the systems development process. Organization Science, 7 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, L. J. 1997. Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Information Systems Research, 8 (3): 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, L. J. 2004. Deploying common systems globally: the dynamics of control. Information Systems Research, 15 (4): 374–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, L. J. and Cummings, L. L. 1996. Contextual influences on self-control of IS professionals engaged in systems development. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6 (3): 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, L. J., Sambamurthy, V., Ko, D., and Purvis, R. L. 2002. Controlling information systems development projects: the view from the client. Management Science, 48 (4): 484–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughry, M. L. and Tosi, H. L. 2008. Performance implications of peer monitoring. Organization Science, 19 (6): 876–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mähring, M. 2002. IT Project Governance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
Makhija, M. V. and Ganesh, U. 1997. The relationship between control and partner learning in learning-related joint ventures. Organization Science, 8 (5): 508–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1977. The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1978. The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. Academy of Management Journal, 21 (2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1979. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25 (9): 833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ring, P. S. and Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19: 841–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, N. L., Sitkin, S. B. and House, A. 1994. Stigma as a determinant of legalization. In Sitkin, S. B. and Bies, R. J. (eds.), The legalistic organization:137–168. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. 1995. Psychological contracts in organizations: understanding written and unwritten agreements. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rustagi, S., King, W. R. and Kirsch, L. J. 2008. Predictors of formal control: usage in IT outsourcing partnerships. Information Systems Research, 19 (2): 126–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, B. H. and Sherman, D. M. 1998. The grammars of trust: a model and general implications. Academy of Management Review, 22 (3): 422–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitkin, S. B. 1995. On the positive effect of legalization on trust. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 5: 185–217.Google Scholar
Sitkin, S. B. and George, E. 2005. Managerial trust-building through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms. International Sociology, 20 (3): 307–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snell, S. A. 1992. Control theory in strategic human resource management: the mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (2): 292–327.Google Scholar
Towry, K. L. 2003. Control in a teamwork environment – the impact of social ties on the effectiveness of mutual contracts. The Accounting Review, 78 (4): 1,069–1,095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, K. L. and Makhija, M. V. 2006. The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 31 (1): 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. and Lind, E. A. 1992. A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna, M. L. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology:115–191. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×