Introduction
Control is the principal subject in numerous organizational theories and remains possibly the main topic that shapes each and every individual’s experience in organizations (Baker, 1993, p. 409). Chester (1968, p. 17) highlights the significance of control. He states that the “key defining aspect of any organization is the workers subordination to a level that their own aspiration do not surpass collective will of the organization”.
He adds that for individuals to realize their dreams they must give up a portion of their autonomy in the organizational. Due to this tension, control is commonly challenging in many organizations. As a result, Organizations have been prompted to set up control systems.
The organizational control systems have considerably evolved in response to changes in managerial systems from the authoritarian bureaucratic control to consensual control in the shape of independent groups or self-managing teams. The latter is a decentralized and more participative egalitarian system that provides a better alternative to the hierarchical bureaucratic control.
This system of control has also evolved from value-based consensus to a system that entails rationalized standard rules (Baker, 1993, p. 410). Edwards (1981) identified three strategies of control that have developed from the contemporary struggle to control individual activities in organizations. The first strategy is the direct, totalitarian and individual control mainly used by business owners or hired managers.
This is common in family-owned businesses. The second strategy is the technological control. This strategy emanates from physical technology. The third and the most common strategy is the overbearing control. This strategy is derived from hierarchical relationships within the organization. It is also based on parallel sets of universal rules that reward those who comply and punishes those who do not comply.
The concept of self-managing teams
At the moment, the most famous organizational transformation to post-bureaucratic structures is the evolution of the conventional hierarchical-based organization to consensually controlled self-managing teams (Baker, 1993, p. 413). Even though this concept has become more popular over the recent past, it is not new. The supporters of this concept describe it as a fundamental change in the conventional managerial and hierarchical structure of an organization (Orsburn et al., 1990; Wellins, William & Wilson, 1991).
According to Baker (1993, p. 413), the concept of self-managing teams transforms the traditional and authoritarian structure to participatory structure. This means that employees in a self-managing team experiences life in an enormously different way than employees in the previous system.
Instead of being given orders by those in the chain of command, employees in the self-managing teams must assemble and analyse information, work on it and take joint responsibility for their deeds. Self-managing teams are usually organized in groups of 10 to 15 individuals. The management’s responsibility is to present value-based goals/vision for employees to work towards. As a result, self-managing team members are guided by these goals to direct their individual tasks and link with other departments within the organization (Baker, 1993, p. 413).
Self-managing teams are in charge of well-articulated tasks in different forms of organizations. The members are well trained to carry out any job function and have considerable power to make key decisions required to execute a given task. In addition to carrying out their individual tasks, members can also set their work plan, make orders and link with other groups (Baker, 1993, p. 414). Besides minimizing bureaucracy and saving costs by eliminating low-level managers, self-managing teams also enhance workers motivation, productivity and devotion (Wellins, William & Wilson, 1991, p. 22).
The disparity between self-managing teams and other approaches
According to Baker (1993, p. 413), employees in self-managing teams are not directly controlled by top management or supervisor, but only uses the value-based corporate vision provided by the top management to guide their daily operations. On the other hand, the other approaches are based on a system of rules and measures that restricts employees’ functions and decision-making.
In other words, these approaches do not regard individuals involved. The structures in the other approaches are so rigid and require all decisions to be approved by the top hierarchy, thus impede employees’ ability to meet consumer’s demands promptly.
Baker (1993, p. 410) explains how employees are entrapped in an “iron cage” in bureaucratic control since control is less vivid or personal. This is because employees are more deep-rooted in the social relations. He adds that control in the bureaucratic system is less personal since power rests entirely with the system, leaving employees with what he describes as “experts without heart” or sensualist without spirit”.
In the earlier bureaucratic systems, workers were openly controlled, ordered, directed and fired at will. However, the current bureaucratic control employs indirect rules. At the moment, workers are controlled by shaping their knowledge of what is right or wrong. They have to seek support for decisions they make from the top hierarchy. This is well articulated in the company rules. In other words, control is hidden in the company rules and hierarchy (Baker, 1993, p. 411).
The impact of the new concept on employees
As already been mentioned, the current democratic system of control provides a more workable alternative to other approaches. This new concept is more effective than the bureaucratic control. Self-managing teams delegates authority to the employees, which in turn enhances the effectiveness of the control systems.
However, Baker (1993, p. 434) argues that this new concept cannot realise its full potential unless the diverse interests and functions of members are integrated in an organized manner. The system must be based on shared values that are enforced by members. Therefore, the self-managing teams are more manifested through interaction with members.
Members are given authority to make decisions as long as they are in-line with the organization’s values and goals. This creates a favourable working environment for employees, thus increases their commitment, loyalty and their willingness to put more effort on behalf of the organization. In addition, members stick to the values of the organization and have desire to remain in the organization (Baker, 1993, p. 435). The self-managing teams also eliminate the low-level managers by making employees their own bosses.
Contrary to many people’s expectations, self-managing teams do not free members from the “iron cage” of control as it is more manifested in each and every member of the organization. Instead, it draws the “iron cage” tighter and restraints members more powerfully. In other words, employees do not have to malinger when the boss is not around since the whole team is keeping an eye on each other. Members of the whole team are responsible for each other. In summary, this is the best control system. However, it has a few challenges, for instance, organizing an effective team. In addition, members usually find it difficult to embrace new responsibility.
References
Baker, J. R. 1993, ‘Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 38, pp. 408-437.
Chester, B. 1968, The function of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Edwards, R. C. 1981, The social relations of production at the point of production, Foresman: Glenview, IL.
Orsburn, J. D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., & Zenger, J. H. 1990, Self-Directed Work Teams: The New American Challenge, Irwin: Homewood, IL.
Wellins, R. S., William, B., & Wilson, J. M. 1991, Empowered Teams: Creating Self-Directed Work Groups that Improve Quality, Productivity, and Participation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.