Control mechanisms are “Any process that directs the activities of individuals toward the achievement of organizational goals” Bateman-Snell (2007). One control mechanism used by Unity would be Scheduling Mechanisms. Scheduling refers to making a sequence of allocation decisions at specific intervals. Scheduling based resource management enables full utilization of an under committed configuration such as a route sheet. Two controls under scheduling are:
1.) GPS tracking implemented in the drivers vehicle.
Positive: Lower fuel costs, visual location to destination tracking.
Negative: Cost, Funds could have been used elsewhere.
Effectiveness: Very effective from a time management standpoint.
2.) Nextel walkie talkie phones.
Positive: Limited to those programmed to use them.
Negative: Individuals can not make outgoing calls.
Effectiveness: Very effective for field to office communication.
Market control in contrast to bureaucratic control involves the use of economic forces and the pricing forces that accompany them that regulate performance. As a market for these transactions become established two effects occur: Price becomes an indicator of the goods or service, and price competition has the effect of controlling productivity and performance. Market control is demonstrated by:
Contracts written by sales people must be reviewed by area managers and confirmed by time studies confirming profitability.
Positives: Ensure accurate and complete compatibility.
Negatives: Sales staff complacency.
Effectiveness: Company not exposed. Confirmation of maximum profitability.
The basic principles that underlie market controls can operate at many levels within a given organization.
Bureaucratic control systems are designed to measure progress toward set performance goals, and if necessary, apply corrective measures to ensure that performance achieves management objectives. However, organizations are not strictly mechanical; they are composed of people. Control systems are used to constrain individual behavior and make future behavior predictable, people are not machines. Bureaucratic control systems can lead to dysfunctional behavior. Bureaucratic control mechanisms cannot be effective without consideration of how people react to it. Often control mechanisms do not appear to be controlling at first glance. Consider the following:
Email: copies are held in server and in individual satellites until deleted.
Positive: Effective way of communication on an immediate basis. Secure with backup.
Negative: Employees believe there is a lack of trust.
Effectiveness: Quality communication, professional correspondence and integrity at all times.
Main control mechanisms are usually non-transparent, even though it is something that is done openly. Part of control mechanisms makeup is to control other so as to evade being found out. Control mechanisms presented through emails can be both intimidating and controlling. Mainly, one needs to consider what one is doing when putting things in writing.
Clan control, unlike Bureaucratic or Market, does not assume that the interests of the organization and individuals naturally diverge. Instead, clan control is based on the idea that employees may share the values, expectations, and goals of the organization and act in accordance with them. When members of an organization have common goals and values, and trust one another, formal controls may be less necessary.
The view of controls assumes that organizations and individuals are purposeful, goal-seeking entities, whose goals may not be congruent, i.e. conflict in goals may be an inherent characteristic of a social organization. The purpose of control systems is to increase the likelihood that people will internalize organizational goals and thus behave in ways which lead to the achievement of these goals.
It is readily evident from the review of literature for this paper is that there are about as many definitions of control mechanisms as there are theorists. The meanings range from “choosing operating rules and enforcement rules to maximize the organization’s objective function” (Arrow, 1964) and “verifying the conformity of actions to plans and directions” (Fayol, 1949) to “interpersonal influence activities” (Tannenbaum, 1968). Some theorists equate control with structure (e.g. Blau & Scott, 1962), while others do not differentiate control and power or influence (e.g. Tannenbaum, 1968). In sum, the lack of theoretical integration has limited the understanding of the nature of the various control mechanisms in complex organizations. More recently, a new perspective on control was provided by Ouchi (1977, 1978, 1979). He suggests that organizations exercise control by providing individuals with input on behavior.
Interpersonal relationships with organizations are sometimes best when account ability using evaluation-reward as a control mechanism involves assessing the performance of individuals or groups against the pre-established goals and standards, based upon the information provided by the measurement system and the personal observation of the superior. Rewards are outcomes of behaviors which are desirable to the person and which can be either extrinsic or intrinsic. The anticipation of rewards serves to influence behavior toward organizationally desired directions.
Each of the controls discussed above have significant impact on the four functions of management. When individuals and teams or clans work for the good of the organization, whether by extrinsic of intrinsic means within in the control mechanisms established, the four functions of management thrive.
Reference:
Arrow, K. Control in Large Organizations, Management Science (1964) pp. 397-408
Tannebaum, A. Control in Organizations (New York: McGraw-Hill 1968)
Ouchi, W., Relationship Between Organizational Structure and Organizational Control Administrative Science Quarterly (1977) pp. 95-113