.,[,!.!,!
MIT LIBRARIES
3 9080 02239 1178
DUPL
,.,"
;'/
v.".'!','
'.;,'''.'.
:;;;:,f:;;i;;:tei|i;ji|S|;i|;!;g
v.v'
"
^aMtitiir
jmrtm ifhMtbtm*
<*
-uukk,
jjt
ro28
.M414
DESIGN TEAM PERFORMANCE:
A CONTROL THEORY PERSPECTIVE
l/S
John C. Henderson
Soonchul Lee
December 1989
CISR
Sloan
WP
WP
No. 198
No. 3104-89
Center for Information Systems Research
Massachusetts
Institute of
Sloan School of
Technology
Monogement
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139
NOV
1 4 2000
libraries"
n
\110
DESIGN TEAM PERFORMANCE:
A CONTROL THEORY PERSPECTIVE
l/S
John C. Henderson
Soonchul Lee
December 1989
CISR
Sloan
©1989
WP
WP
J.C.
No. 198
No. 3104-89
Henderson,
S.
Lee
Center for Information Systems Research
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts institute of Technology
I/S
Design
Team
Performance:
A
Control Theory Perspective
Abstract
The
control relationship between project managers and
aspect of the working of any I/S design team.
team members
is
a central
This paper uses control theory to develop
measures of managerial control and team member control from both output and process
perspectives.
The
control relationship
is
studied for 41 actual design teams.
indicate that high performing teams exhibit both strong process control by
strong outcome control by peers.
Results
managers and
1.0
I/S
DESIGN TEAM PERFORMANCE: A CONTROL THEORY PERSPECTIVE
The increased use
well
of information technology as a key element of strategy has been
documented (Bakos and Treacy
1984, Parsons 1983. Rockart
manage
Kemerer
(I/S)
yet, the ability to effectively
still
represents
decade and a high percentage of systems
paper we examine the performance of
In this
And
and Scott Morton 1984).
and Learmonth
Ives
a
significant
(1989), for example, noted that backlogs in I/S have been increased
substantially over the last
late.
Cash and Konsynski 1985,
development of information systems
the
challenge.
1986,
I/S
finish
over budget and
design teams from the perspective
of control theory.
While
relationship
performance
clearly
not the only theory that
in this project-oriented task
different
model of
effective I/S design.
among members on
a
(1987) argued that interactions
roles,
One
including manager,
among
these roles
is
a
central to effective
I/S
1978,
design teams are
designers,
and
critical step in
aspect of these relationships
team (Boland
among
is
environment. Because most
understanding the underlying relationships
influence
applicable to this issue, the control
between the project manager and the team members
composed of a number of
ing a
is
is
Robey and Farrow
users,
develop-
the pattern of
1982).
Salaway
these roles occur at the intersection where user
knowledge (business knowledge) and designer knowledge
(I/S
knowledge) meet. Each kind
of knowledge must influence the other effectively in order to design information systems
that can better
skills,
meet user needs.
In addition, designers
expectations, and motivations to the design process.
and users bring
different goals,
Thus, a traditional task of the
manager
of their
is
to influence both designers
own
to
work toward the team's goals
instead
goals.
The above
Flamholtz
and users
et
al.
discussion
fits
quite well with a control perspective of performance.
(1985) defined control as the organization's attempts to increase the
probability that employees will behave in ways that lead to the attainment of organizational
goals.
Weber
(1947) defined control as a process of creating and monitoring rules through
In his view, control systems regulate patterns of interaction to
hierarchical authority.
restrict
employees' behavior.
Ouchi (1979) saw control as an evaluation process which
is
based on the monitoring and evaluation of behaviors or outputs.
In the leadership literature, control has
been defined as a leader's taking actions
that induce a subordinate to adopt organizational goals
and Berkes 1979, Schriesheim
et al. 1976).
Thompson
(House and Dessler 1974, Jermier
(1967) and Reeves and
Woodward
(1970) defined control as a cybernetic process of testing, measuring, and providing
feedback with respect to a defined goal structure.
We will
argue for a perspective of control that includes both managerial control and
collegial control.
That
is,
for the
purpose of studying
I/S
design teams
we
will
consider
both control as exercised by a project manager and control exerted by members of the
team on each
other.
This perspective
example, Boland (1978),
is
reflected in
many
De Brabander and
studies in the
MIS
design literature.
For
Thiers (1984), Henderson (1988), and others
investigated different patterns of influence between designers and users in the design ot
They found
information systems.
that strong
mutual influence of designers and users
produces an environment that better matches the way design actually takes place. Keider
(1984) and Schmitt and Kozar (1978) found that most projects that lacked the basic
management
principles of such planning
and control had
failed.
Similarly, Mills (1971)
and
others have focused on leadership as a predictor of design team performance.
In the following
we
synthesize a
number of
of the team process in I/S planning and design.
that managerial control
variation in
from 41
2.0
I/S design
A
We
test the
model
central proposition of the
and team-member control can explain a
team performance.
model
control theories to provide a
is
significant portion of the
proposition using empirical data gathered
teams and discuss the implications
for the I/S function.
ALTERNATIVE CONTROL MODELS
Mantei (1981) claimed
that the
two predominant control structures
in I/S
planning
and design are the chief programmer team proposed by Mills (1971) and the egoless
programming team proposed by Weinberg
authority belongs
throughout
the
to
the
(1971).
chief programmer,
team membership.
programmer design team, but
while
In the former, the decision-making
in
Communications are
latter,
control
centralized
are decentralized in Weinberg's team.
programmer team can be characterized
as
Weinberg's team
team-member
is
the
characterized by strong
That
having strong managerial
control.
in
is
diffused
the
is,
chief
a chief
control
while
March and Simon (1958) proposed
type of control structure
hierarchical control
possible;
when
is
effective
tasks
become
is
(1950) and Leavitt (1951),
When
appropriate.
is
coordination by feedback
that task predictability largely determines
tasks are
and work sequencing
variable
necessary and decentralized control
in their
programmer team
as
structure
position
we
centralized
First, as
individual;
to
more
take in this paper
is
is
is
to
predict,
effective.
Bavelas
difficult
more
to
more time and generate
Such research suggests
many
that
design teams often
fail
In this paper
and design.
in
most
real software
out, the effective chief
lauded for
to finish their tasks
we propose
This team structure
team-member
is
control.
chief
approach
that neither the purely hierarchical
development
programmer
is
its
is
a rare
unlikely
Second,
communication and decision-making complexity.
although the decentralized group
a
types of I/S design tasks, while a
most so-called chief programmer teams are headed by someone who
the
twice as
effective for other types.
appropriate
Yourdon (1976) pointed
adequately handle
strong
groups.
would be suited
nor the purely decentralized approach
situations.
is
is
experiments on centralized and decentralized problem-
decentralized team structure might be
The
routinized and predictable,
because coordination and control by plan and schedule
solving behavior, found that decentralized groups take
many communications
what
open communication channels, such
on time (Mantei 1981).
a third alternative for modeling effective I/S planning
is
characterized by both strong managerial control and
Strong team-member control
software development practice because tasks
in
I/S
is
necessary
planning and design are
in
modern
difficult
in
nature; strong managerial control
must be managed
in
is
necessary because diverse, often competing, goal sets
order to produce products as rapidly as possible to meet an
organizational set of goals.
We
at the
believe that both managerial control and
same
In general, past studies of small
time.
view of control
in
team-member
group behavior assume a zero-sum
design teams (Cartwright and Zander 1968,
zero-sum assumption, an increase
accompanied by a reduction
in
in the
the
McGrath
control exercised by
control
control can be increased
exercised
1984).
team members must be
by the manager.
assumption, these past studies have indicated which design team structure
terms of task contingency.
in
Given the
is
With
more
this
effective
This perspective suggests that a Weinberg group would
function well in difficult I/S development projects that are not time-constrained and/or
have an existing set of shared goals.
involves users from
the
literature
many
In a software project with a tight deadline that
functional areas, these assumptions are often incorrect.
shows a major pattern of weakness
in
relation
to
Further,
these assumptions.
Although a great deal has been learned about the potential influence of the leader's
behavior, leader behavior alone accounts for only a small portion of performance variance
in
most empirical studies (Kerr 1977).
In a view that
is
contrary to a zero-sum perspective
we
maintain that strong
managerial control can be achieved without sacrificing team-member control. Tannenbaum
(1968) claimed that both the manager and the employee can increase their influence
together without a negative impact upon one another.
He
also reported that in
his
comparative analysis of several different organizations, performance was correlated with
the
sum
(1982),
of the managers' control and the subordinates' control.
Clegg (1981), and Hofstede
(1967)
same
time.
Conceptually
many
al.
arguments consistent with the
provided
hypothesis that strong managerial control and strong
Similarly, Bartolke et
team-member
control can exist at the
scholars recognize this fact, but research has tended to
focus on either a bivariate relationship between managerial control and performance or
between team-member control and performance (Ouchi 1979, 1977; Eisenhardt 1985, Mills
1983, Peterson 1984).
form of control
is
Empirical studies have also tended to emphasize that only one
desirable at a time depending
on the contingency of
tasks (Ouchi 1979,
1977; Kerr and Jermier 1978, Jermier and Berkes 1979).
Tannenbaum
(1968) claimed that a high degree of control by the manager
necessary for the efficient administration of an organization and, at the
degree of team-member control
loyalty.
is
same
is
time, a high
also necessary to foster identification, motivation,
and
Lickert (1961) has also suggested the importance of a high level of mutual
influence within teams as the basis for effective coordination of organizational activity as
well as for the integration of the goals of individual
These conditions, leading
persons at
PI:
all levels,
the
members and
of the organization.
to effective performance, entail significant control exercised by
manager
as well as
all
of the
team members. Thus, we propose:
Increased levels of both managerial control
and team-member
significant positive effect on the performance of design teams.
control have a
In the following sections
specific variables into
2.1.
we develop
the theoretical basis for the inclusion of
our model.
Managerial Control
Managerial control refers to the manager's attempts to influence employees
behave
in
project
manager includes
Control-oriented behavior for an
accordance with organizational goals.
defining and documenting the
team members;
functional analysis and coding tasks to
work
establishing
to
to
I/S
be done; assigning
performance guidelines
through task feedback; comparing actual performance to performance standards; and
initiating corrective action as necessary
(Katz and Lerman 1985).
These types of managerial behavior are
managerial control (Flamholtz
Flamholtz
et al.
et al.
consistent with a range of research on
1985, Jermier
and Berkes 1979, Schriesheim
(1985) claimed that the core control system
measurement system, feedback, and
is
composed of
a reward system. Both the Jermier
1978).
planning, a
and Berkes (1979)
and the Schriesheim (1978) studies claimed that a leader's behavior can be viewed
control
mechanism which encourages employees
the organization
to
as a
behave consistently with the goals of
and discourages them from doing otherwise.
Recent control theories (Eisenhardt 1985, Ouchi 1979 and 1977, Ouchi and Maguire
1975,
Peterson 1984) claimed that managerial control can be established by either
behavior-based control or outcome-based control. According to
control refers to the extent that the
this view,
behavior-based
manager monitors and evaluates team members'
behavior
in
order to
them.
assist
In contrast,
outcome-based control
is
the degree to
which the manager monitors and evaluates only the outcome produced by the team
,
members.
Leadership behavior studies (House and Dessler 1974, Howell and Dorfman 1981,
House and
Mitchell 1974, Jermier and Berkes 1979, Schriesheim 1978) provide a robust
characterization of managerial behavior control.
dimensions of managerial behavior control:
expectations of subordinates
specific
tasks,
methods.
and
work, (2) work assignment:
in their
we have adopted
manager's behavior control
To
(1) role clarification:
in I/S
identified three
clarifying
management
assigning subordinates to
enforcing rules, procedures, and work
(3) procedure specification:
In this paper
These studies have
these three dimensions to characterize the
planning and design projects.
characterize the manager's outcome control,
we have adopted
perspectives from
communication and cybernetics theories (Campion and Lord 1982, Flamholtz
Sorensen and Franks 1972).
According to these theories, outcome feedback
relevant dimension of outcome-based control.
be operationalized
design
activities.
in
The
is
1985,
the most
for I/S design teams can
terms of team goal achievement and the achievement of interim
latter reflects a
goals into a series of milestones.
control (Katz and
Outcome feedback
et al.
Lerman
common
practice in 1/S design of
These milestones then provide a
1985, Keider 1984).
8
decomposing team
basis for
outcome
2.2
Team-Member Control
Recently several researchers have pointed out that managerial control accounts
for only a small portion of the criterion variance, such as
in
Two
most empirical studies of leadership.
findings (Howell
performance and job
explanations have been provided for these
and Dorfman 1981, Kerr 1977, Kerr and Jermier 1978).
noted, managerial control
is
satisfaction,
First, as
we have
exercised through the manager's intervention process. There-
fore, the actions or style of control of a given
manager might be perceived
differently by
different employees.
Second and more important, most empirical studies ignore team
member's
which may be acting
self-control,
in
such a way as to prevent or neutralize the
manager's influence.
In this self-control process a person faced with response alternatives chooses
what
Mahoney
1974,
otherwise would be regarded as a low-probability response (Thoresen and
pp. 12).
Self-control
is
differentiated
from freedom or
laissez faire in that
it
is
related to
organizational effectiveness.
Unlike managerial control which
process,
team-member
One common
de
Ven
cannot
et
exercised through the manager's intervention
control refers to self-control or self-management by
perspective found in the literature,
aL (1976),
adequately
procedures.
is
is
that self-control
measure
is
Slocum and Sims (1980) and
is
Van
be implemented when the organization
performance
behavioral
In other words, self-control
any other choice.
likely to
i.e.,
team members.
resorted to
In contrast, a second view such as
or
standardize
transformation
when management does not have
Manz and Sims
(1980) and Mills
implemented by the team members' own
and
that
managerial control and team-member control can be operative at the same time.
As
(1983),
is
that self-control can be
discussed above,
we
will investigate the
the context of I/S design.
We
extent to which this second view
define team
member
behavior used to define managerial control.
that guides the
member
3.0
team towards achievement of organizational
is
applicable
is
control in terms of the
The key notion
will
in
same types of
that the control behavior
goals
is
exercised by a team
rather than a manager.
RESEARCH DESIGN
This section describes the design and data collection of the
to explore our hypotheses concerning control in I/S planning
Our plane
analysis as
of observation
is
that of the teams.
As
conducted
and design teams.
such,
an appropriate research method (Seidler 1974). As
field study
we chose key
Phillips
informant
and Bagozzi (1981)
have noted, the measurement of team-level properties has often entailed the use of a key
informant method.
on a
social
The key informant method
setting by
is
a technique for collecting information
interviewing (or surveying) a selected
Although the use of key informants has
traditionally
participants.
been associated with
methodology (Lofland 1971), several researchers (Seidler 1974,
Phillips
number of
Silk
and Bagozzi 1981) have used key informant methodology
qualitative
and Kalwani 1982,
in
conjunction with
procedures for collecting survey data to obtain quantifiable measures on organizational
characteristics.
10
In these situations, survey respondents
provide
information
at
aggregate
the
or
role of key
assume the
collective
unit
of
analysis
informants and
team or
(e.g.,
organizational properties), rather than reporting personal feelings, opinions, and behaviors
we
In our research,
(Campbell 1955).
utilized
key informants selected from the team to
project manager, I/S designer, and
report on the control behaviors of three key roles:
domain representatives
(see Table
At
1).
least
one informant from each
surveyed, enabling us to have two informants per role plus a self report
(e.g.,
a
was
role
manager
informing on the managerial role.)
We
administered questionnaires to 432 individuals
We
organizations.
for
designers,
used two basic types of instruments:
domain
representatives,
questionnaire for stakeholders,
That
covered the design process.
I/S
(i.e.,
The team process questionnaire
for designers
position
an obvious
We
it
Teams
:
The
project size
10
first
and
performance
a
type of questionnaire
surveyed control structures with questions on the
anchored the questions to the role being assessed.
for project
manager and the team process questionnaire
slight
changes
in
wording to
in
reflect their
order to avoid
bias.
In choosing design
team which had worked together
6 months).
managers,
used stakeholders to assess team performance
common method
Selection of Design
project
is,
and domain representatives had
on the team.
project
in
a team process questionnaire
non team members). The
We
planning and design process.
and
48 design teams
in
teams we limited group inclusion
to a
for a significant period of time (approximately
was controlled by number of
11
individuals (5-10)
and duration
Project
manager
Designers
The person
:
who manages the focal
project.
Professionals whose expertise and duties are
primarily m the area of l/S technology, system
development, programming, etc. for the focal
:
project.
Domain
representatives
Stakeholders:
:
Professionals whose primary expertise and duties
are in the function/business of the customer/user.
They should be team members of the focal project
and often are customer representatives.
Professionals
who
are not formal
members
of the
focal project but are affected by the output of the
team or can affect the performance of the team.
Table
1
Role Definitions
(approximately 12 months).
A
teams were working on designing business applications.
All
survey of design methodologies and
geneous and standard approach to
CASE
I/S design.
technology usage suggested a
These guidelines helped
fairly
homo-
to ensure that task
complexity was similar.
Selection of Respondents and Informants
designers,
For each design team one project manager, two
:
and two domain representatives, plus four stakeholders were surveyed.
our design teams were composed of 5 to 10 people,
individuals
on the team
to
enabled a high percentage of
be surveyed.
Questionnaire Administration
directly to the project
this
The survey process involved sending
:
the questionnaires
managers and following up with them as appropriate.
questionnaires were mailed directly back to us to ensure confidentiality.
procedures were described
Since
in the
Completed
Confidentiality
questionnaire in order to increase response rate and
increase the reliability of reporting. Participation of individuals was voluntary and so noted
in the
questionnaire.
Altogether 432 individuals
asked to participate
72%
for
role
of the total
some teams
is
shown
in
in the study.
number
to
about
Table
in
48
I/S
Among
planning design teams for 10 companies were
these,
310 usable replies were received, or about
of questionnaires sent out.
44%
for the lowest teams.
2.
13
The response
rate ranged
from 100%
The breakdown of response
rate by
Since each team has only one project manager, the response rate for the project
manager was 100%
Since response at the individual level was voluntary
.
individual could return a blank
(i.e.,
an
form and no follow up would occur), the response rate did
vary.
Of
the 48 teams that received questionnaires, 41 returned at least the following:
one project manager, one designer, one domain representative and two stakeholders.
These 41 teams provide an informant from each
for
role
and therefore serve as the database
our analysis.
4.0
MEASUREMENT MODEL
This section discusses the measurement model used in
this
study.
The model
provides the relationships between the measured variables and the theoretical constructs
we chose
4.1
to study.
Measurement Model
As
Phillips
and Bagozzi (1981), Huber and Power (1985) and others have noted,
key informant analysis
is
illustrated
own
their
by
for Control
Silk
is
subject to
method
and Kalwani (1982).
role's influence with respect to a
bias.
One
critical bias relevant to this
They found informants tended
buying process.
Similarly,
work
to exaggerate
Henderson (1988)
Some teams initially contacted chose not to participate due to the implied workload.
These teams are not included in the response rate and may be a source of selection bias.
^
14
found evidence of systemic role bias
for
the
analysis
self-report
reporting on user influence in I/S design.
discussed by
For
details
on other
Huber and Power
tactics
the reader
in
Thus,
we
differentiated
order to
test for a self
of managerial control and team members' control
by both team members and the project manager
report bias.
4.1.1.
in
used to address the range of informant bias
is
referred to
Lee (1989).
Managerial Control
As
discussed,
and outcome-based
we measured two
types of managerial control: behavior-based control
Behavior control was broken down into three categories,
control.
based on leadership behavior theory (Jermier and Berkes 1979, Kerr 1977, Kerr and
Jermier 1978, Schriesheim 1978, Schriesheim
clarification
et al.
1976).
(ROLE), work assignment (ASSI), and procedure
These categories are
specification
role
(PROC). Each
category was assessed by asking informants to respond to multiple items using seven point
Lickert-type scales.
These items are included
in
Appendix
1
and are denoted by the
acronyms ROLEl, ROLE2, ASSIl, ASSI2, PROCl, PR0C2. The two items for outcomebased control are denoted by
of the item scores are also
OUTPl
shown
in
and 0UTP2.
Appendix
The means and standard
deviations
1.
Internal Consistency of Operationalizations
To
assess the internal consistency of these items,
all
184 responses from the project
managers, designers and domain representatives were tested for
15
reliability using
Cronbach
alpha.
A
factor analysis
control dimensions
were
was performed
distinct.
The Cronbach alpha
Reliability:
0.858, 0.786, 0.696,
and
coefficients for
State Leadership Questionnaire
(Schriesheim 1978).
role clarification items
PROC
were
to those of
Even though the
Ohio
reliability
for
was achieved".
in
two factors
This analysis supports the proposition that there
are two dimensions of managerial control.
and
level
were similar
factor analysis using a varimax rotation resulted
accounting for 65.5% of the variance.
control items
ASSI, and
items were based on the Ohio State
reliability coefficients
procedure specification was low, the minimum
A
OUTP, ROLE,
Our
0.534, respectively.
Leadership Questionnaire and our
Factor Analysis:
outcome control and behavior
to ensure that the
However, the
combine
to
results suggest that the
form one
factor,
outcome
and work assignment
and procedure specification items form the second.
One
reason
why
the role clarification items covary with
found by examining the contents of the items.
level of
performance that
other, the project
performance".
(Schriesheim
manager
is
In one, the project
control can be
manager
"explains the
expected of our project team members' work" and
"lets
our project team members
know what
is
in the
considered good
These items were taken from work on leadership behavior theory
1978) in which role clarification was theorized to be one part of the
manager's behavior-based control. However,
"
outcome
The zero-order
correlations for
all
in the
context of I/S design, these role
clarifi-
items are available from the authors upon
request.
16
cation items reflect what should be expected from
closely related to manager's desired outcome.
team members.
That
they are
is,
Interviews with teams supports the view that
the role clarification items were interpreted as outcome control indicators most often
linked to definition of milestones for the project.
Based on
control.
we
this analysis,
In the following analysis
include role clarification items as part of outcome-based
outcome-based control and behavior-based control are
an average for the respective items and are denoted as
OUTPM
and
BEHAM.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Since there were three types of informants,
we can examine
discriminant validity of these measures using a multitrait-multimethod
in
which the informant type
Bagozzi 1981).
control,
where
Table 3
OUTPM
is
is
the
and
viewed as a method
MTMM
BEHAM
(Silk
the convergent and
(MTMM)
and Kalwani 1982,
approach
Phillips
and
matrix (Campbell and Fiske 1959) for managerial
are viewed as
traits,
and the project manager
informant ("M"), designer informant ("D"), and domain representative informant ("U") as
different methods.
Convergent
correlation
validity
was not achieved
was 0.144 (p>0.10).
correlation
informants
the
OUTPM
variable.
The
smallest
This analysis suggests that there was an insignificant
correlation between designer informants and
representative
in
manager informants, and between domain
and manager informants.
However, there was a strong
between the domain representative and the designer informants.
17
Convergent
correlation
validity
between
significantly different
the
for
behavior control
responses
from zero.
The
from
(BEHAM)
informants
strong.
is
The
was 0.320 (p<0.01), which
and the domain representative informants.
There are two possible reasons why we did not achieve convergent
First, since the
informants, there might be self-report
validity for
weakest correlations were due to the manager
method
bias.
However,
this
does not explain why
Second and more probably,
convergent validity was achieved for behavior control.
may be
is
strongest correlation can be found again between
the responses by the designer informants
outcome-based control.
smallest
this
explained by differences between managerial control given and managerial control
Many
received (Ouchi 1977).
relationships
between
researchers have assumed control
social actors.
Wrong
control need not be exercised to exist.
is
realized only in dyadic
(1968), however, asserted that managerial
Even though
control
is
usually defined as the
a distinct difference between the
capacity to influence others, he emphasized that there
is
capacity to control and the actual practice of control.
This distinction was noted by
(1984) and Provan
members
et al.
(1980), as well.
Cobb
Since designers and domain representatives are
of the I/S planning and design team and subordinates of the project manager,
their perceptions of managerial control can
be viewed as managerial control received. The
project manager's perception of his managerial control can be viewed as managerial
control given.
Outcome-based control might not be perceived by the team members
they are performing well from the perspective of the project manager.
project
manager might
closely
monitor the outcomes of
19
his
if
In this case the
team members and may claim
that
he
is
exercising strong outcome-based
control,
but his team
members may
not
perceive strong managerial control.
This reasoning can explain
why we have achieved convergent
validity for
BEHAM.
Since behavior control involves manager's behavioral interaction with team members, the
distinction
between control given and received
From
the
above
we
discussion
is
not strong.
separate
managerial
outcome control given
(managerial outcome control perceived by the manager) from managerial outcome control
received (managerial outcome control perceived by the team members).
outcome control received
the
is
assessed by two categories of key informants, the designer and
domain representative informants, we can
approach.
validity.
No
an
test discriminant validity using
violations occurred in this case indicating convergent
MTMM
and discriminant
However, managerial outcome control given can not be tested (we have only one
informant); hence
we must
recognize the potential weakness of this measure.
In the case of behavior based control, convergent
achieved.
Since managerial
Applying the same
logic
of the above
was
tative informants.
an analogous manner
In
was
argument
to behavior control,
the
between responses by designer and domain represen-
strongest correlation
also found
validity
and discriminant
to the
outcome control dimension, we separate
behavioral control into behavioral control received (measured by the average of designer
and domain representative responses) and behavioral control given (measured by the
managers response).
TTiis
separation has the benefit of enabling subsequent analysis to
20
directly
examine the relationship between a project manager's perceptions of control and
team performance.
In
summary, we have convergent and discriminant
validity for
control received and managerial behavior control received.
behavior control given
show
internal reliability,
measured based on only a
we can
we examine
following section,
4.1.2.
is
Managerial outcome and
single informant.
While the items
not assess the convergent or discriminant validity.
the measured validity for
team member
In the
control.
Team-Member Control
The
existing literature
Van de Ven
et al.
1976,
(Manz and Sims
Tannenbaum
by the roles of team members.
into
managerial outcome
differentiating these
quite differently.
1968) does not differentiate team members' control
However,
two types of
in this study
team-member
control
roles
is
that their tasks have
The
was divided
rationale for
been viewed by researchers
Designers are expected to build an information system.
on the other hand, are expected
Therefore, in our study
representative control.
we used
(BEHAD), domain
Domain
to supply relevant business knowledge.
separate items to measure designer control and domain
For each
dimensions, giving four variables:
control
Slocum and Sims 1980,
designer control and domain representative control.
two types:
representatives,
1980, Mills 1983,
role,
team member control was measured by two
designer outcome control
representative
21
(OUTPD),
designer behavior
outcome control (OUTPU), and domain
representative behavior control
in
Appendix 2 with
their
(BEHAU). The
means and standard
items used to measure
them are shown
deviations.
Internal Consistency' of the Operationalizations
Since most of the empirical literature does not differentiate the type of team
members, we need
to test
whether our differentiation
is
justified.
This can be tested by
examining the correlations between designer control and domain representative control
the item level; that
is,
whether items intended
to
at
measure domain representative control
are significantly different from items intended to measure designer control. Table 4 shows
the zero order correlations between items used
Scanning
this
matrix shows that
all
in
the questionnaire.
the correlations between the items for measuring
designer outcome control and domain representative outcome control are significant
(p<0.001).
In addition,
all
the correlations between the items for measuring designer
behavior control and domain representative behavior control are significant (p<0.001).
On
the other hand, the items measuring behavior-based control of any role were not
correlated with items measuring outcome-based control at the p=0.01 level.
Therefore,
we can conclude
that items used in the questionnaire can differentiate
the theoretical constructs, outcome-based control and behavior-based control
there
is
no difference between designer control and domain representative
further clarify our argument
Factor analysis:
we performed
but that
control.
To
a factor analysis.
In order to verify that the data reflects the
outcome and behavior
--
control, a factor analysis
-)">
two primary dimensions of
was performed using varimax
rotation.
Two
59%
factors resulted accounting for
interpretation of
outcome and behavior
of the variance and are consistent with the
control.
Factor loadings for behavior control items
ranged from .696 to .786 while those for outcome ranged from .738 to
.801.
These
results
support the premise that we measured two distinct dimensions.
Since
Reliability:
we
two dimensions of team-member control, we average
find only
designer outcome-based control and domain representative outcome control (denoted by
OUTPT), and
BEHAT).
designer behavior and domain representative behavior control (denoted by
The Cronbach alphas
respectively.
We
can also
test to
BEHAT
for
determine
if
and
OUTPT
were 0.7440 and 0.7934,
any given item does not merit inclusion by
Results show
examining corrected item-total correlations (Carmines and Zeller 1983).
reliability
could not be increased by removing any single item. This reinforces our decision
In sum,
to aggregate the items.
control items, the items for
if
we aggregate
team-member outcome
designer and
domain representative
control and the items for
team-member
behavior control show good internal consistency of the operationalizations.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
We
MTMM
can again use the fact that
analysis
and assess convergent
team-member
control,
informant,
designer,
i.e.,
we have
where
OUTPT
and
multiple informant types to perform a
validity.
BEHAT
Table 5
is
the
are viewed as
traits,
domain representative and project manager,
24
MTMM
matrix for
and the type
ot
as different methods.
that neither convergent validity nor discriminant validity
Note
of the manager informants' responses.
If
we
eliminate the
could
be
related
representatives.
be
strong
to
the
working relationship between
responsibility for input
between
these
members.
and design of the system.
explanation of
and
domain
roles
has
prime
However, project managers are often
et al. 1979).
and domain representatives have more opportunity
with the project manager, they would be
more accurate sources
to
To
the extent
work together than
of information concerning
control behavior.
However,
since
we cannot
test
the above argument with survey data (although this
idea was confirmed through interviews),
(1)
designers
Each of these
concerned with a wider range of management issues (Allen
team member
One
Since designers and domain representatives work as a team, there should
interactions
that designers
achieved because
manager informants' responses,
both convergent validity and discriminant validity would be achieved.
this
is
team-member outcome
we
separate scales to assess
team-member
control as perceived by the team members, (2)
control:
team-member
behavior control as perceived by the team members, (3) team-member outcome control as
perceived by the manager, and (4)
manager. In
effect,
we
team-member behavior
control as perceived by the
separate the perception of the project manager in a manner similar
to that for the managerial control variables.
each variable have good
reliability,
As
a result, the underlying
measurements
for
and for the team members we show convergence across
multiple informant types.
25
4.2
Measures of Performance
We
used subjective measures to assess performance because of the substantial
problems involved
1988).
in
using objective measures for this task
(Kemerer 1989, Henderson
Since our study involved teams from multiple organizations, use of internal
accounting systems data to measure performance was inconsistent. Each organization and
teams within organizations not only varied
terms of the integrity of
in
terms of data collected but varied widely
data collection process. Thus, expert judgement
this
in
became our
best source of performance data.
The performance
of
the
design
teams,
in
terms of their efficiency
(EFFE), and elapsed time (TIME) was assessed by non-team stakeholders.
effectiveness
Stakeholders are individuals
who were
affected by the output of the
management
responsibility for
The number
of stakeholders
from two to
five
Appendix
performance.
its
who
shows
the
(I/S
and
members
of the project but were directly
team's performance.
directly affect the
line)
who sponsored
the project or had
successful completion, implementation, or ongoing usage.
filled
with an average of
3
not formal
team or could
Examples include senior executives
out the performance questionnaire per team ranged
2.6.
questionnaire
measures used for each dimension of
Except for one item, the measures for EFFI and
EFFE
were the same
those developed and validated by Henderson (1988). Note however that
measures:
(EFFI),
"the team's adherence to budgets"
the efficiency dimension.
and "the team's adherence
However, there were several instances
26
in
we
as
separated two
to schedules" for
which the question
concerning the team's adherence to budgets was not answered.
stakeholders
suggested
that
Therefore,
we dropped
reason for
might not have known specific details of the
0.750, 0.723,
and
0.736, respectively, suggest
an adequate
These values are lower than those obtained by Henderson (1988).
this difference
may be
the increased
While somewhat low, these
study.
budgets.
the budget item to improve the reliability of our measure.
Cronbach Alphas of
of reliability.
Follow-up interviews
number of
reliabilities
are
still
level
One
organizations included in this
within
an acceptable range
(Nunnally 1967).
To be
sure that our 41 teams represent independent sample points,
i.e.,
variance in the dimensions of performance arises from genuine differences
design teams rather than the organizations,
that the
we
ran three
ANOVAs
that the
among
to test the hypothesis
performance variables could be explained by an organization variable.
multivariate Fs were 1.075, 1.881, 1.581 for efficiency, effectiveness,
that there
were no
and time,
significant differences across the organizations (P>0.10).
variations in performance variables
within-organization variations,
among
the
The
indicating
Since the
the organizations were not greater than the
we have support
for the general notion that
variables varied due to differences across teams.
In the follov^ng analysis, therefore,
design teams are treated as individual sample points.
27
performance
all
5.0
A.N
EMPIRICAL TEST OF THE TEAM PROCESS MODEL
The underKing theme
and behasioral.
this \iev,'
is
v,idely
advocated
this
The
[see
it
in
theor\ to the context of
team members
Performance
IS planning and
measured
in
outcome
design.
(OLTPM;. team-member
and
domain
This research attempts to
are managerial behavior control
control (OLTPT).-^
(designers
is
(1968) for a review].
we measured
managerial outcome control
team-member outcome
that control behavior, both
organizational control literature and has strong empirical
Tannenbaum
control variables
is
performance of IS design teams. As discussed,
positively related to the
is
evidence to support
extend
for our proposition
behavior control
(BEHAM),
(BEHAT) and
Each control variable has been assessed by
representatives)
and
the
project
manager.
terms of efficiency (EFFI), effectiveness (EFFE) and elapsed
time (TIME).
We
ry-elve
test
hypotheses that reflect the relationships between each of these
variables and our three performance variables.
no relationship
DUBERAM
addition.
and
The
results of these tests are
DUOLTPT
DL'BERAT was
(p<0.05j.
^ In
exists.
In each case, the null h\pothesis
were
related to
summarized
significantly related to all
EFFE
The managers' assessment
(p<0.05) and
in
Tables 6 and
that the project
Both
performance variables.
In
DUOLTPM was related to EFFI
of the control variables was not significantly related
is preceded by DU or M, where DU indicates
indicates
and the domain representative assessed the variable, and
our notation each control variable
that the designer
7.
that
is
manager assessed
M
the variable.
28
to
performance variables.
any
assessment of
ways.
First,
own
his
is
discussed earlier, the results using a manager's
(MBEHAM
and
MOUTPM)
can be interpreted
may be
these measures are self-reports, so position bias
natural conclusion
he
control
As
exercising.
different things:
is
that a manager's
own
self-report overestimates
in
operating:
how much
two
the
influence
Second, the two measures of managerial control may actually measure
managerial control as assessed by the project manager
manager and managerial control
control given by the project
as assessed by
may
refer to
team members
can be viewed as control received, as Ouchi (1977) has claimed.
To
assess the
significant difference
argument,
first
between
team members (t(OUT) =
was
at
least
we argued
4.12,
plausible.
that,
If
ran two paired
self-reports by the project
reject the hypothesis that there
Earlier
we
is
p <
.01,
t(BEH) =
t-tests.
4.01,
p <
.01).
show a
Thus,
we cannot
a significant self-report bias.
based on the measurement model, the second intei-pretation
we adopt
this
view, managerial control received
performance variables.
managerial control received
may be more important than managerial
individuals with different roles
is
more
In the case of the I/S design teams,
planning and design entails complex tasks which require
explicit
results
managers and non-self-reports by
significantly correlated with
I/S
The
control given.
much
interaction
Since
among
(Guinan and Bostrom 1986), team members may need
reinforcement and coaching from the manager.
have a manifest impact on team members' perception.
31
Thus, managerial control should
We
now
analyze the results using assessments
behavior-based
manager's
control
and
made by team members. When
outcome-based
behavior-based control was more significantly related to
The designers and
the
domain representatives have
control
all
different
were
compared,
These data suggest the important
providing explicit direction
outcome-based
The
skills,
role perceptions,
relationships
strongly related to
among performance and
this interaction
by
all
the team members' control variables
control variables, outcome-based control was
of the performance variables than behavior-based control
behavior control refers to self-control
in
as providing feedback on performance.
strong collegial control,
i.e.,
.
executing a team member's
whereas team-member outcome control can be viewed
tasks,
outcome
design process, which cannot be done using only
Among team members'
Team-member
own
the
managing
final
and
control.
were the opposite.
more
in
role of
the
the performance variables.
mental schemata which must be combined through their interactions into a
(Boland 1978).
the
as collegial control, such
These data indicate those teams
that exhibit
exerted peer pressure to achieve outcome commitments, were
significantly higher performing.
A
regression analysis using the four variables (as assessed by team
provides support for proposition PI and for the claim that
"*
We
assessed
team-member
control
I/S
members)
design tasks require both
separately for both designers and
domain
representatives, and found that self-report and non-self-report measures were in agreement
in this
study (for the measurement model see the previous section). Thus,
we can exclude
the possibilit)' of self-bias in the aggregated measures, which include both self-report and
non-self-report measures of the team
member
32
control variables.
(DUBEHAM)
be
to
processes
control
efficient
and
and team outcome control
Managerial
effective.
(DUOUTPT)
behavioral
13%
There are
seem
likely.
First, as
We
inadequate.
Second,
tv^'o
TIME
However, these
of the variance for the time dimension.
discussed in Section 5.2, our subjective measures for
somewhat
among
compared
to those of past empirical work.
their
and ours
studies
differently.
determining
...
is
difficult
They measured
policy?"
team-members' control
to
team-members
our
Tannenbaum and
(the designers
A
related to organizational effectiveness.
is
since
they
comparison
strict
operationalize
and the
the
constructs
the leader's control by asking survey respondents
actually have in determining
assessed team member's control by asking "how
subunit.
in
projects for scarce resources.
"how much influence does your leader
in
be
(1968) tested the hypothesis that the degree of control, exercised both by
representatives),
between
TIME may
might be better explained by other theoretical variables not included
leaders (in our case the project manager) and by
domain
variable that
used only two items which had not been pretested by other studies.
findings can be
his colleagues
TIME
interpretations of our findings concerning the
study, e.g., competitive pressure
Our
44% and 38%
together explain
of variations in the efficiency and effectiveness of the I/S design teams.
variables only explain
control
much
influence
They then added the values
measure the
total
amount of
Despite these differences, our results are
33
in
...
policy",
and they
do team members have
for
leader's
control
and
control in the organization or
general agreement with theirs.
In Table 7
them showed
correlations
we generated
correlations with
significant
with
several measures for the total
performance
(DUBEHAM + DUOUTPT). We
of control
variables
the
are
can interpret
found
this
in
can
control
reflected in our variable,
is
show
Team-member
our study
outcome
is
its
impact
on
control refers to the
et al.
DUBEHAM,
performance
amount of
most strongly reflected
the
last
strongest
row of Table
total
7:
amount
(1968) defined managerial control
team members' behavior. This
since the managerial behavioral
through
team-members'
control exercised by
in the variable
All of
DUOUTPT,
behavior.
team members and
i.e.,
a
in
team member's
control.
Tannenbaum
et al.
(1968) found that the correlation between the total
control and effectiveness ranged from 0.29 to 0.45.
effectiveness
-I-
The
combined variable as the
as the extent of a manager's influence in determining the
relationship
control.
performance variables.
Tannenbaum
in a didactic relationship.
amount of
and the
DUOUTPT)
total
amount of
control
amount of
In our case, the correlation
in the didactic relationship
between
(DUBEHAM
was 0.569 (p<0.01)^.
Given the support we found
for the hypothesis that control variables can explain
performance, a more detailed analysis of the pattern of performance between managerial
control
and
and team-member control
DUOUTPT, we
Tannenbaum
is
provided.
Using the median values for
DUBEH.AM
split
the 41 I/S planning and design teams into four subgroups as
et al.
operationalized performance variables by effectiveness items
similar to our items for the effectiveness variable.
34
shown
in
Figure
1.
We
EFFE, and TIME)
then examined the average values of performance variables (EFFI,
in
the
appropriate
As would be expected,
cell.
the
degree of
managerial behavior control and team-member outcome control are clearly reflected
performance variables.
team-member outcome
the best, and
worst.
First,
when both
in the
high managerial behavior control and high
control were operating (Cell One), the performance variables were
when both were low
(Cell Four), all the
performance variables were the
Second, when either low managerial control or low team-member control was
achieved, the performance variables were not greater than those in Cell One, but were
better than those in Cell Four.
Although we can compare neither Cell
nor to Cell Three because of the small sample
Cell Four, using the t-statistic.
were
The
high managerial behavior control and high
compared
team-member outcome
6.0
to
teams
(n=5),
we can compare
values of the t-statistics for EFFI,
3.93, 3.28, 1.72 (all significant at p=0.01),
performers
size
with
low
One
to Cell
Cell
Two
One and
EFFE, and TIME
which supports the claim that teams with
team-member outcome
managerial
behavior
control are better
control
and
low
control.
CONCLUSION
This result supports the proposition that a control theory perspective can be used
to explain the relative
performance of
I/S
concepts of behavior and outcome control
design teams.
in the context
Our research
of I/S design.
these to notions of control behavior to both project managers and
35
operationalizes the
Further,
we apply
team members.
Low managerial
behavior control
High managerial
behavior control
High team
outcome
member
control
EFFI
EFFE
TIME
5.364
5.427
4.913
^^
" =
Cell
Low team member
outcome
control
1
The
That
results are consistent with previous research in control theory.
outcome and behavioral control can
co-exist
and the greater the degree of
is,
both
explicit control
behavior perceived by the team, the better the team's performance.
From an
Our
perspective, the findings are particularly interesting.
1/S
results
suggest high performance I/S design team have managers that exhibit behavioral control
and team members
that exhibit
outcome
control.
The former
highlights the importance
Our
interviews reinforced this
of knowledge-based leadership in an I/S design context.
Behavioral control reflected the
finding with an important insight.
to aid the design process.
The knowledge needed
restricted to I/S design practice.
of the manager
for this assistance, however,
is
not
Rather, the design process requires an understanding of
the business (from both a technical and a social perspective).
Our
interviews suggested
managers often brought domain knowledge to bear on work assignments,
effective
procedure clarification and so on.
training
ability
and selection
To
the extent that this single study
criteria for I/S project
managers must
is
validated, the
reflect their ability to provide
behavioral-based control.
The
in
an
I/S
significance of collegial
design context.
easily distribute
outcome based control
For example, emerging
performance data on a
CASE
real time basis
to
performance
is
important
technology provides a means to
throughout the team. These results
team performance by enabling
a
peer-to-peer outcome control structure, rather than the project leader hierarchy that
is
suggest such practice could help to improve overall
traditionally used.
37
Of
course, this single study does not provide the basis to conclude definitively that
managerial behavior control combined with team
member outcome
control
is
preferred.
Additional research must consider factors such as task contingencies, experience of team
members or technology
assisted methodologies.
Yet, this does provide one theoretically
grounded lens with which the systematic study of high performing
I/S
planning and design
teams can be conducted.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the
and the Center
Management
for Information
38
in the
1990s project
Systems Research.
REFERENCES
M.L. Tushman and D.M.S. Lee, 'Technology Transfer as a Function of Position
the Spectrum from Research through Development," Academy of Management Journal,
Allen, T.J.,
in
22, 4 (1979), 694-708.
Bakos, J.Y. and M.E. Treacy, "Information Technology and Corporate Strategy:
Research Perspective,"
Bartolke,
K.,
Participation
W.
MIS
A
Quarterly, 10, 2 (1986), 107-119.
Eschweiler,
Flechsenberger,
D.
and AS. Tannenbaum, "Workers'
as Perceived by
and the Distribution of Control
Members
of
Ten German
Companies," Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (1982), 380-397.
Bavelas, A., "Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups,"
Journal of Acoustical
Society America, 22 (1950), 725-730.
Boland, R.J.,
Jr.,
'The Process and Product of System Design," Management Science,
24,
No. 9 (1978), 887-898.
D.N. and D.W. Fiske, "Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the
Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix," Psychological Bulletin, 56, No. 2 (1959), 81-105.
Campbell,
Campbell, D.T., "The Informant
60 (1955), 546-553.
in
Quantitative Research," American Journal of Sociology,
Campion, M.A. and R.G. Lord, "A Control Systems Conceptualization of the Goal-Setting
and Changing Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30 (1982),
265-287.
Carmines, E.G. and R.A. Zeller,
Beverly
Hills,
CA,
"Reliability
and
Validity Assessment,"
Sage Publications,
1983.
Cartwright, D. and A. Zander, "Power and Influence in Groups:
Introduction,"
Cartwright and A. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics: Research and Tfteory, 3rd.
Row, New York, 1968, 215-235.
ed..
in
D.
Harper
&
Cash,
J.I.
and B.R. Konsynski,
"IS
Redraws Competitive Boundaries," Harvard Business
Review, 63, 2 (1985), 134-'l42.
Clegg, S, "Organization and Control," Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, No. 4 (1981),
545-562.
39
Cobb, A.T., "An Episodic Model of Power:
Rtseavch," Academy of Management
De
Review,
9,
Toward an
Integration of Theory and
No. 3 (1984), 482-493.
Brabander, B. and G. Thiers, "Successful Information System Development
in
Relation
Which Affect Effective Communication between MIS-Users and
EDP-Specialists," Management Science, 30, No. 2 (1984), 137-155.
to Situational Factors
Eisenhardt, K.M., "Control:
31,
Organizational Economic Approaches,"
Management
Science,
No. 2 (1985), 134-149.
'Toward an Integrative Framework of
Organizational Control," Accounting Organizations and Society, 10, No. 1 (1985), 35-50.
Flamholtz,
T.K.
Das and
A.S.
Tsui,
and R.P. Bostrom, "Development of Computer-Based Information Systems:
Communication Framework," Data Base, 18 (1986), 3-16.
Guinan,
A
E.G.,
P.J.
Henderson, J.C, "Involvement as a Predictor of Performance in I/S Planning and Design."
Center for Information Systems Research Working Paper #175, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA,
August 1988.
Hofstede, G.H., The
Games of Budget
Control,
Von Gorcum,
Assesn, Germany, 1967.
House, R.J. and G. Dessler, 'The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Some post hoc and
a priori Tests," in J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.) Contingency Approaches to Leadership,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1974, 29-55.
and T.R. Mitchell, "Path-Goal Theory of Leadership," Journal of Contemporary
Business,
Howell,
3,
No. 4 (1974), 81-97.
J.P.
and P.W. Dorfman, "Substitutes
Academy of Management
for Leadership:
Test of a Construct,"
Journal, 24, No. 4 (1981), 714-728.
Huber, G.P. and D.J. Power, "Retrospective Reports of Strategic-Level Managers:
Guidelines for Increasing Their Accuracy," Strategic Management Journal, 6 (1985), 171180.
and G.P. Learmonth, "The Information System
Communications of the ACM, 27, 12 (1984), 1193-1201.
Ives,
B.
as
Jermier, J.M. and L.J. Berkes, "Leader Behavior in a Police
Closer
Look
at the
a Competitive
Command
Weapon."
Bureaucracy:
Quasi-Military Model," Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, No.
(1979), 1-23.
40
A
1
Work Breakdown
Katz, B. and N. Lennan, "Building a Three Dimensional
Data Base, Summer 1985, 14-26.
Keider, S.P.,
"Why Systems Development
Management,
Kemerer,
1,
C.F.,
Structure,"
Journal of Information Systems
Projects Fail?"
No. 3 (1984), 33-38.
"An Agenda
Software Engineering
for
Research
(CASE) Tool
in
the Managerial Evaluation of
Impacts,"
Computer-Aided
Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, January
3-6,
1989, pp. 219-228.
Kerr,
"Substitutes for Leadership:
S.,
and Administrative
Organization
and J.M. Jermier,
Some
Implications for Organizational Design,"
Sciences, 8, No.
1
(1977), 135-146.
"Substitutes for Leadership: Their
Human
Organizational Behavior and
Meaning and Measurement,"
Performance, 22, No. 3 (1978), 375-403.
"Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group Performance,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46 (1951), 38-50.
Leavitt, H.J.,
Lee,
S.,
"Managing
I/S
Planning and Design Teams:
A
Control Theory Perspective,"
MA
Doctoral Dissertation, Sloan School of Management, M.I.T., Cambridge,
Lickert, R.,
New
Lofland,
Analyzing Social
J.,
Patterns of
Management, McGraw-Hill,
Settings,
John Wiley
Mantei, M., 'The Effect of Programming
Communication of
the
ACM,
24,
&
Team
New
Sons,
1989.
York, 1961.
New
York, 1971.
Structures on
Programming Tasks,"
No. 3 (1981), 106-113.
Manz, C.C. and H.P. Sims, Jr., "Self-Management as a Substitute for Leadership: A
Social Learning Theory Perspective," Academy of Management Review, 5, No. 3 (1980),
361-367.
March, J.G. and H.A. Simon, Organizations, John Wiley
McGrath,
J.E.,
&
Sons,
New
York, 1958.
Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ,
1984.
Mills,
H.D., "Chief Programmer Teams:
71-5108,
IBM
Principles
and Procedures,"
Fed. Syst. Div., Gaithersburg, MD., 1971.
41
IBM
Rep.
FSC
Mills,
P.IC,
?Topenies,"
"Self-Management:
Its
Academy of Management
Control and Relationship to Other Organizational
Review, 8, No. 3 (1983), 445-453.
Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill,
New
York, 1967.
"A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organization Control
Mechanisms," Management Science, 25, No. 9 (1979), 833-848.
W.G.,
Ouchi,
"The Relationship between Organizational Structure and Organizational Control,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, No. 1 (1977), 95-113.
,
and M.A. Maguire, "Organizational Control:
Science Quarterly, 20, No. 4 (1975), 559-569.
Functions," Administrative
A New Competitive Weapon," Sloan Management
Parsons, G.L., "Information Technology:
Review, 25,
Two
(1983), 3-14.
1
Peterson, K.D., "Mechanisms of Administrative Control over Managers in Educational
Ovganizaiions," Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, No. 4 (1984), 573-597.
Phillips,
L.W. and R.P. Bagozzi, "On Measuring Organizational Properties: Methodological
Use of Key Informants," Working Paper, Stanford University, Graduate
Issues in the
School of Business, 1981.
Provan, K.G., J.M. Beyer and C. Kruytbosch, "Environmental Linkages and Power
Resource-Dependency Relations between Organizations," Administrative Science
25, No. 2 (1980), 200-225.
Quarterly,
Woodward, 'The Study of Managerial Control," in Industrial
J. Woodward, J. (Ed.), Oxford University, London,
Reeves, T.K.
and
Organizations:
Behavior and Control,
J.
in
England, 1970, 37-56.
Robey, D. and D. Farrow, "User Involvement in Information System Development:
Conflict Model and Empirical Test," Management Science, 28, 1 (1982), 73-85.
Rockart, J.F. and M.S. Scott Morton, "Implications of Changes
for
Corporate Strategy,"
Interfaces, 14,
1
in
A
Information Technology
(1984), 84-95.
Salaway, G., "An Organizational Learning Approach to Information Systems Development."
MIS
Quarterly, 11, No. 2 (1987), 245-264.
Schmitt, J.W. and K.A. Kozar, "Management's Role
Failures:
A
Case Study," MIS
Quarterly,
2,
in
Information System Development
No. 2 (1978), 7-16.
42
New Leadership Behavior
Expectancy
Research
Doctoral
Dissertation,
Instruments,"
College of Administrative
and
Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH., 1978.
Schriesheim, C.A., "Development, Validation, and Application of
^
R.J.
House and
S.
Kerr, "Leadership Initiating Structure:
Discrepant Research Results and
Some
A
Reconciliation of
Empirical Tests," Organizational Behavior and
Performance, 15, No. 2 (1976), 297-321.
"On Using Informants: A Technique for Collecting Quantitative Data and
Controlling Measurement Error in Organization Analysis," American Sociological Review,
Seidler,
J.,
39 (1974), 816-831.
A. and M. Kalwani, "Measuring Influence in Organizational Purchase Decisions,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (1982), 165-181.
Silk,
Slocum,
J.W.,
Jr.
and
H.P.
Organization, and Job Design,"
Sims,
"A Typology
Jr.,
Human
for
Integrating
Technology,
Relations, 33, No. 3 (1980), 193-212.
Sorensen, J.E. and D.D. Franks, "The Relative Contribution of Ability, Self-Esteem and
Evaluative Feedback to Performance: Implications for Accounting Systems," Accounting
Review, 47, (1972), 735-746.
Tannenbaum,
Thompson,
A., Control in Organizations,
J.D., Organizations in Action,
McGraw-Hill,
McGraw-Hill,
New
New
York, 1968.
York, 1967.
Thoresen, E. and M. Mahoney, Behavioral Self-Control, Holt, Rinehart,
&
Winston,
New
York, 1974.
Van de Ven,
A.H., A.L. Delbecq and R. Koenig, "Determinants of Coordination
within Organizations," American Sociological Review, 41, No. 2 (1976), 322-338.
Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free, Glencoe,
Weinberg, G., The Psychology of Computer Programming,
York, 1971.
Wrong, D.H., Power:
Yourdon,
E.,
Its
Van Nostrand
Modes
IL, 1947.
Reinhold,
New
Forms, Bases, and Uses, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England, 1968.
Managing the Structured Technique, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
1976.
43
Cliffs,
NJ,
Appendix
1.
Managerial Control Questions
How accurate do you
think the following statements are in describing your
project.
My project manager in
the
XXXXX
project
manager
for the
XXXXX
Appendix
2.
Team-Member
Control Enablers Questions
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
For
work
relating to the
XXXXX
project
Appendix
3.
Performance Questions
The following questions ask you to compare the
XXXXX
project
team to other teams.
other comparable project teams you have served on or observed,
rate
on each of the following.
In relation
how does the XXXXX
project
to
team
M9i
018
Date Due
Lib-26-67
3 9080 02239 1178