Organizational Controls and Performance Outcomes: A Meta‐Analytic Assessment and Extension

Abstract

Managing employees and external partners effectively has been a primary concern for organizations and their managers. Many studies have investigated the effectiveness of organizational controls in a wide variety of contexts. Using organizational controls literature that discriminates among outcome, behaviour, and clan control, this study synthesizes the research on the effectiveness of these controls. In particular, the study examines 23,839 organizational controls–performance relationships from 120 independent samples, and tests several new hypotheses using advanced meta‐analytic methods. The results indicate that outcome, behaviour, and clan controls generally enhance performance, with each control having a distinct performance effect. Our analysis also demonstrates that controls function as complements to one another. This finding indicates that one form of control increases the effectiveness of other forms of control. We also examine the organizational controls–performance relationships across various contexts, and our results show that they vary according to the type of task. The paper concludes with a discussion on the theoretical and managerial implications of these findings.

Meta‐Analytic Research in Management: Contemporary Approaches, Unresolved Controversies, and Rising Standards

“…Habersang et al (2019) leverage QMA to introduce a new theoretical typology that would have been difficult to identify using deductive methods, quantitative analysis, or single case studies. Carnes et al (2019) use MASEM to test their theorizing about key mediators while Sihag and Rijsdijk (2019) and Karam et al (2019) Maas et al, 2019;Rosenbusch et al, 2019;Wang et al, 2019) leverage external sources (e.g., World Bank) in MARA to investigate how country-level factors shape important relationships, thereby testing hypotheses that might otherwise be cost prohibitive. Finally, Schommer et al (2019) use MARA to show how important relationships changed over 60 years of researchers' investigations.…”

Firms' intellectual property ownership aggressiveness in university–industry collaboration projects: Choosing the right governance mode

“…Consequently, contract formality and shared governance are not mutually exclusive governance modes but relate to different dimensions (Holgersson et al, ). Hence, the two governance modes can arguably co‐exist with varying levels of intensity in UIC projects (Bstieler et al, ; Sihag & Rijsdijk, ).…”

“…Yet, collaborating firms' IP ownership aggressiveness paired with scarce project contributions may disappoint and frustrate university researchers, thus severely limiting their motivation. University partners who would be willing to contribute their best to UIC success and exceed firms' expectations in reciprocal relationships when granted the appropriate autonomy in their research (Bercovitz & Tyler, ) may suddenly become reluctant and reduce their contributions to the minimum obligations specified in the formal contract (Lawson, Petersen, Cousins, & Handfield, ; Sihag & Rijsdijk, ). Hence, one may conclude that firms' strong IP ownership aggressiveness can already provoke a relationship atmosphere fraught with conflicts and tensions, which are further amplified if firms employ strict formal contracts, such that university researchers limit their contribution efforts (Bercovitz & Tyler, ; Faems et al, ).…”

“…Shared governance as a more intensive and stakeholder‐oriented governance mode will help mitigate the tensions that potentially arise from firms' strong IP ownership aggressiveness, because UIC partners strengthen their collaborative relationship by consulting each other and feeling obliged to jointly find solutions (Bstieler et al, ; Sihag & Rijsdijk, ). Accordingly, it will be possible to strengthen collaboration partners' reciprocal knowledge input, thereby allowing them to agree more variably on the level of firms' necessary background IP sharing and foreground IP allocation.…”

“…Previous studies suggest that both governance modes positively influence collaboration project success (Bercovitz & Tyler, ; Du et al, ; Gesing et al, ). UIC projects normally comprise both governance modes, but with varying intensity (Bstieler et al, ; Sihag & Rijsdijk, ).…”