The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process
Abstract
Control theory attempts to explain how one person or group in an organization can ensure that another person or group works toward and attains a set of organizational goals. Prior empirical work investigating control theory has shown that characteristics of the task and of the organizational environment predict the use of various types of control. However, this paper argues that when control theory is applied to a complex, nonroutine task such as the management of information systems development, the theory of control is incomplete. In particular, it proposes that knowledge of the task is a key determinant of type of control. Four modes of control (behavior, outcome, clan, and self) art identified from the organizational literature; each high-lights different aspects of control in organizations. Building on prior empirical work, this paper integrates the different theoretical perspectives and predicts the circumstances under which each type of control will be implemented. Survey responses from 96 participants of 32 systems development efforts suggest that the extent to which behaviors are monitored interacts with the project sponsor's level of systems development knowledge to determine the amount of behavior control; that outcome control is a function of the extent to which behaviors are monitored and outcomes are measurable; and that self-control is dependent on the extent to which outcomes are measurable and the level of the project sponsor's knowledge about systems development activities. No relationship between clan control and the independent variables was found.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3 · Cited by 1,309
Multiple Regression in Practice
Berry, W., & Feldman, S. (1985) · doi:10.4135/9781412985208 · Cited by 1,227
Cited by
Awad, N. F., & Krishnan, M. S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148715 · Cited by 1,252
Roberts, J. A., Hann, I.-H., & Slaughter, S. A. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0554 · Cited by 1,024
Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development1
von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S., Spaeth, S., & Wallin, M. W. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703471 · Cited by 698
Algorithmic control and gig workers: a legitimacy perspective of Uber drivers
Wiener, M., Cram, W. A., & Benlian, A. (2023) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2021.1977729 · Cited by 251
Examining the Impact of Algorithmic Control on Uber Drivers’ Technostress
Cram, W. A., Wiener, M., Tarafdar, M., & Benlian, A. (2022) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2022.2063556 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirsch, L. J.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 1996-02
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-21
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2101233178
- Cited by
- 671
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.