Organisations can control individual employees by providing rewards like monetary incentives and associated fringe benefits such as cheap loans, company car, free meals etc. Rewards also can include satisfying work, personal responsibility and autonomy. These rewards are motivators and are aimed to get the individual work harder.
An example in real life has happened to me at my place of work Safeway. The store manager gave us a £10 gift voucher for our department exceptionally achieving our targets in sales and wastage. Whether a £10 gift voucher was enough I don’t know but this is just example of this source of management control in practice.
Part of Weber’s (1970) account of bureaucracy one basic element
The hierarchy, or division of power involves the ranking of offices to provide clear lines of command. In bureaucracies the hierarchy also is typically very complex, its many levels providing a highly differentiated structure of authority
(Fincham and Rhodes 1992)
Organisation structure is the main way through which management control is achieved. Without organisation structure control could never be possible, employees would do as they please because there’s no power or authority over them. It is for this reason we have Directors, Managers, Supervisors and Workers so that the division of power is clear in the organisation and a structure is formed. An example of hierarchical control always happens at my working place in Safeway. The store manager will pass a task to the controllers of the store this task is then passed on to the sales assistances to do, the controllers responsibility is to make sure the task is done.
Organisations can control individual employees through the power to set the agenda; the first way they can do this is through recruitment and training. Organisations do not want employees that behave in unstable, variable, spontaneous, random and individual way. This can be controlled through recruitment and training, where criteria that fit the organisations attitudes and values can be set up and used for selection. Existing employees can get trained up in the ever-changing way the organisation operates. I have attended a customer service course at Safeway, where Safeway were changing their customer service values.
Organisations may also control individual employees through the power to set the agenda by setting policies and rules in an organisation. Written polices and rules guide employees’ actions, structure their relationships and try to establish consistency. Rules establish acceptable behaviour levels of performance and attempt to lay down standards. Budgets maybe also used to control an individual; they can be given targets to guide their performance. An exact example happens to me at work in Safeway, take for example the wastage as a percentage of sales target for the week is under 1.8% anything more than this is not really expectable.
Control through the power to exclude or in everyday terms could be known as punishment can has good or bad effects on an organisation and is very unpredictable. Organisations will not know how the individual will react as not every individual is the same. Control through the power to exclude could mean the withdrawal of rewards, pay deduction, suspension, dismissal, prison; it all depends on the type of organisation. This is normally implied when an individual performs defiance to management directions.
Personal centralised control consists of centralised decision taking, direct supervision, personal leadership: founded upon ownership or charisma, or technical expertise and the reward and punishment reinforce conformity to personal authority.
Bureaucratic control includes the breaking down of tasks into easily definable elements. Formally specified methods, procedures and rules applied to the conduct of tasks. Budgetary and standard cost-variance accounting controls. Technology designed to limit variation in conduct of tasks, with respect to pace, sequence and possibly physical methods. Routine decision taking delegated within prescribed limits and the reward and punishment systems reinforce conformity to procedures and rules.
Output Control has job and units designed to be responsible for complete outputs. Specification of output standards and targets, use of ‘responsibility accounting’ systems, delegation of decisions on operational matters: semi-autonomy. Reward and punishment is linked to attainment of output targets.
Cultural control includes the development of strong identification with management goals, semi-autonomous working: few formal controls. It also includes strong emphasis on selection, training and development of personnel and the rewards are oriented towards security of tenure and career progression.
The first difference between these four management strategies are that they comply with different types of organisations. Each strategy has a specific organisation it is familiar with. Take for example personal centralised control is often found in small owner managed organisations like a sole trader. Output control is normally found in manufacturing organisations.
Another difference is that the rewards and punishment of each control strategy take on a different objective. Take for example an organisation with a bureaucratic control strategy believes that reward and punishment systems reinforce conformity to procedures and rules. An organisation with a output control strategy believes reward and punishment is liked to attainment of output targets.
Output control and cultural control have some aspects of autonomy, individuals are give some independence when working. Once objectives are set management delegate tasks out to workers and a form of trust is given to them. In this way individuals could get better job satisfaction as a greater responsibility is given to them.
Personalised centralised control and bureaucratic control still keep a form of centralised decision making structure. Personal centralised control strategy takes aboard a Taylorist attitude of authority being the key notion of the strategy.
It is also fair to say that personal centralised control will only work if organisation is of a small size, if it expands it will be impossible for a single person to control the organisation. This is what separates this strategy with the others, all the others work on a larger scale bases, bigger workforce, capital intensive, organisations where delegation is essential.
There are a number of theories of power and control that give organisations ideas in ways which they can control individual employees.
The first theory I will look at is Luke’s three dimensional model, which is the model that of Steven Luke’s (1974). He believes that there are three major perspectives or better known as ‘faces of power’ that bring us to the real roots of social power. The first being that ‘A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would otherwise not do,’ which was earlier stressed by Dahl (1954). The second face of power was that A has the power to exclude B from entering the decision making process. And the third being that A has power in that their definition of the situation is accepted by B. Luke’s three dimensional model is therefore essentially structural.
The second theory of power and control comes from Foucault and Disciplinary Power, which is the theory that of French social scientist Michel Foucault. He believed that the problem with structural approaches is that they fail to distinguish the realities of power, and have yet to catch up with the changed nature of power in post-modern society.
Foucault looks back before and up to the eighteenth century of punishment of crime, the times where criminals were tortured in public. He then goes on to state that by the nineteenth century physical punishment disappeared and was replaced by imprisonment and believed this was the beginning of the disciplinary age.
For Foucault, power is invested in architecture, the layout of classroom, hospitals, dormitories and in complex of knowledge.
(Lecture 9: Power and Control Slide7 MG1051)
The third theory of power and control is the Compliance Theory formed by Etzioni, the theory involves three dimensions: power; involvement; and the identification of kinds of power with kinds of involvement. This is the expansion of Weber’s formulation of legitimate authority to fit modern organisations.
Etzioni starts by classifying power:
- Coercive power relies on the use of threats or physical sanctions or force, for example, controlling the need for food or comfort;
- Remunerative power involves the manipulation of material resources and rewards, for example, through salaries and wages;
- Normative power relies on the allocation and manipulation of symbolic rewards, for example, esteem and prestige.
Then he classifies types of involvement:
- Alternative involvement occurs where members are involved against their wishes. There is a strong negative orientation towards the organisation.
- Calculative involvement occurs where attachment to the organisation is motivated by extrinsic rewards. There is either a negative orientation or low positive orientation towards the organisation.
- Moral involvement is based on the individual’s belief in, and value placed on, the goals of the organisation. There is a high positive orientation towards the organisation.
When considered together, nine logical types of organisational relationships and compliance result from this typology.
There are many differences between each of the three theories, firstly each have a different view of power. Lukes believes that individuals hold power and it is used to obscure real interests.
Foucualt believed differently, he believed that power was not owned by people and that power is a machine that nobody owns.
Etzioni linked power with involvement and that the type of power depended on the type of involvement.
Foucualt believe that power has no centre, no superstructure and no imposition from above. Instead he believed power is systematic and power is invested into the way organisations were designed and the knowledge of people. We must remember that Foucualt was mainly looking at disciplinary power.
Lukes three dimensional model is structural and so is Etzioni’s compliance theory, each have a structure that need to be followed to produce an outcome.
Foucualt mainly looks at disciplinary power in his theory, Lukes I believe simply looks at power on a whole and as for Etzioni he looks at three different types of power.
The only similarity I see between each theory is that all are trying to produce and display ways in which organisations try to control individuals to comply with organisation objectives. And this is achieved with the management source of power.
After all these theories and stratergies of power and control unfortunately an individual cannot be totally controlled in today’s sociaity. Individuals are different in vast ways, and will be more able to be controlled than others, but this all depends on that individuals beliefs, personality or circumstances.
Individuals can be controlled but not totally controlled, take for example you are chief accountant earning £60,000 a year, which supports your family of four. You will listen and do what the organisation tells in order to keep your good job. But if the organisation bring up higher demands for the job, like raising your hourly work a week from 40hrs to 60hrs, and increasing your workload by double this individual may not want to work any more because of the demands being too high. Some may try to do this and this once again all depends on the individual. But there is always an extent to where an individual can be controlled and every individual is different.
Even in organisations like the military who believe in total power and control of an individual cannot totally control individuals. You get individuals leaving the army all the time.
Although there was a time of total control of an individual and we only have to go back to 1939, the year when the World War II to place. Every male above the age of 15 and bellow the age of 50 had to go to the war, this is an example of total control that existed. In today’s UK society there are to many laws that prohibit total control in organisations. But I must say total control those exist in many other countries across the world.
At the beginning of this essay I talked about the importance of control to organisations, it is one of the important stepping-stones to an organisation being successful. So a balance must be struck, too much power and control over an individual could cause the individual to be rebellious and will bring out the best level of output. Too little power and control gives to much freedom to the individual allowing them to do what they want when they want. Like Etzioni displays in his theory, different types of power suit different types of involvement.
