Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T10:35:43.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Consequences and antecedents of managerial and employee legitimacy interpretations of control: a natural open system approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema  and
Ana Cristina Costa
Edited by
Sim B. Sitkin ,
Laura B. Cardinal  and
Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema
Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema
Affiliation:
VU University, Amsterdam
Ana Cristina Costa
Affiliation:
Brunel University, London
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

In this chapter we present a natural open system approach to organizational control, as opposed to dominant approaches, which can be typified as either rational system approaches, closed system approaches (Scott,1987), or both. Our aim is to promote scholarly understanding of organizational control by drawing on a wider range of possible insights than dominant approaches do.

Two scholarly traditions, both with rather strong foci on certain aspects of control, have been prominent in the field. The first tradition, represented by agency theory and rational choice models of human behavior (Eisenhardt, 1989), focuses on rational choice of control mechanisms by managers, with the underlying assumption that control choices are driven by effectiveness and efficiency concerns. This focus typifies a rational system approach. The second tradition, represented by bureaucracy studies, draws on agency theory and the critical management tradition (for an overview of this tradition see Delbridge, Chapter 4) to focus on reactions to managerial control by those subjected to it. The studies in this tradition have mainly highlighted the constraining, harnessing, distrust-signaling perceptions of control. Both traditions can be typified as closed system approaches, since factors outside the organization, such as organizational environments, are not included in the analysis of employee reactions.

We propose to move from these rather narrow rational and closed system approaches to a more encompassing understanding of factors involved in shaping managerial choices and reactions of employees.

Type
Chapter
Information
Organizational Control , pp. 396 - 433
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

Adler, P. S. and Borys, B. 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., and Chen, Z. X. 2002. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E. and Maehl, F. A. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1): 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, J. R. 1999. The discipline of teamwork: participation and concertive control. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. and Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M. 1997. On costly frictions between organizational cultures and structure. In Rahim, M. A., Golembiewski, R. T., and Pate, L. E., Current topics in management, vol. II: 123–153. London: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M. and Bunt, G. G. 2003. Antecedents of trust in managers: a “bottom up” approach. Personnel Review, 32: 638–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M., Jong, B. A., and Bunt, G. G. 2008. Heed, a missing link between trust, monitoring, and performance in knowledge intensive teams. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 19: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D'Alessandro, D. U., and Koestner, R. 2006. The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation and well-being on performance: prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 750–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardinal, L. B. 2001. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: managing research and development using input, behavior, and output controls. Organization Science, 12: 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: 411–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalykoff, J. and Kochan, T. A. 1989. Computer-aided monitoring: its influences on employee satisfaction and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 42: 807–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. E. 2001. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 278–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquit, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., and Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colyvas, J. A. and Powell, W. W. 2006. Roads to institutionalization: the remake of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 305–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creed, W. E. D. and Miles, R. E. 1996. Trust in organizations: a conceptual framework. In Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. (eds.), Trust in organizations: frontiers of theory and research. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., and Gilliand, S. W. 2007. The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21: 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, M. 1964. The bureaucratic phenomenon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deci, E. L., Eghari, H., Patrick, B. C., and Leone, D. R. 1994. Facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 6: 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14: 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellemers, N., Gilder, D., and Haslam, S. A. 2004. Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29: 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagliardi, P. 1986. The creation and change of organizational cultures: a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 7: 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, M. and Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouldner, A. 1954. Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., and Reynolds, K. J. 2003. The ASPIRe model: actualizing social and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76: 83–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Jaffee, D. 2001. Organization theory: tension and change. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of groupthink. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Sawyer, J., Early, P. C., and Lind, E. A. 1987. Fairness and participation in evaluation procedures. Effects on task attitudes and performance. Social Justice Research, 1: 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, R. M. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 569–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, J. R. and Callahan, C. 1990. Performance monitoring: how it affects work productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 530–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, E. A. and Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, E. A. and Schweiger, D. M. 1979. Participation in decision-making: one more look. In Staw, B. M. (ed.), Research in organizational behavior, I: Amsterdam: Elsevier.265–339.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. F., Plant, R. W., and Ryan, R. M. 2005. Psychological needs and threats to safety: implications for staff and patients in a psychiatric hospital for youth. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36: 415–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1994. A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 2001. Organizational culture: mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mayo, E. 1933. The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
McGregor, D. 1960. Human side of enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Merchant, K. A. 1985. Control in business organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pittman.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, A. K. and Spreitzer, G. M. 1998. Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: the roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work redesign. Academy of Management Review, 23: 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moorman, R. H. 1991. The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M. 1988. The problem of human agency in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 9: 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichman, I. 2007. Controle en vertrouwen, lang zo gek nog niet [Control and trust, a not so bad combination]. Unpublished Masters thesis, VU University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Roethlisberger, F. J. and Dickson, W. 1939. Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schein, E. H. 1992. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 1987. Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems (2nd edn.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. 2001. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Simon, H. 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69: 99–118.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 Pablo, A. L. 1992. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17: 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1,442–1,465.Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, F. W. 1911. The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. and Blader, S. 2005. Can business effectively regulate employee conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1,143–1,158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knippenberg, D. and Schie, E. C. M. 2000. Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vroom, C. W. 1980. Bureaucratie, het veelzijdig instrument van de macht [Bureaucracy, a many sided instrument of power]. Alphen aan de Rijn, The Netherlands: Samson.Google Scholar
Walton, R. and Hackman, J. R. 1986. Groups under contrasting management strategies. In Goodman, P. S.et al. (eds.), Designing effective workgroups:168–192. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Wilkins, A. and Ouchi, W. 1983. Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 468–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. C. and Deci, E. L. 1996. Internalization of bio-psychosocial values by medical students: a test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, S. 1999. The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. The Journal of Psychology, 133: 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, L. G. 1986. Production of trust : institutional sources of economic structure, 1840–1920. In Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L. (eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, VIII: 53–111. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×