The paradox of managing autonomy and control: An exploratory study

Abstract

Managers are frequently offered conflicting advice as to how to increase organisational success. One of these complex dilemmas is whether to grant employees autonomy, which may lead to self-management and empowerment or alternatively, exercise control which may enable managers to retain a well-focussed and goal driven workforce. This research focuses on the key factors that influence the various combinations of autonomy and control and their respective outcomes. Qualitative exploratory research was conducted using in-depth interviews with 16 leading South African management and Human Resource experts to uncover their insights regarding this dilemma. The findings suggest that combinations of autonomy and control can co-exist. Management are able to create environments with high levels of autonomy whilst simultaneously retaining high levels of monitoring and oversight when the management control is indirect. It was found that the seemingly contradictory practices of autonomy versus control are a paradox, not a dilemma. Seventeen factors were identified that influence the different levels of autonomy and control in organisations.

A management dilemma: Positioning employees for internal competition versus internal collaboration. Is coopetition possible?

“…This figure illustrates the concept that the two management approaches tend to be mutually exclusive the closer the approaches are positioned to the extremities (Gilbert & Sutherland, 2013).…”

“…Often these management dilemmas are inherently paradoxical in nature, where the two states are seemingly contradictory. Examples of such dilemmas include exploitation and exploration (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009), employee autonomy and management control (Gilbert & Sutherland, 2013), organisational stability and change (Farjoun, 2010;Nasim & Sushil, 2011) and collaborating with competitors (Rijamampianina & Carmichael, 2005;Chin, Chan & Lam, 2008). Serreta et al (2009), Johnson (2012 and Peters (2012) show that dilemmas are typically defined as two extreme options which imply conflicting gains.…”

“…Kahane (2010) argues that the challenge is not in choosing one option but rather in managing the inherent tension and achieving a measure of balance between the two forces. However balance between paradoxical options may only be temporary since the inherent tension between the contradictory elements will resurface (Smith & Lewis, 2011;Gilbert & Sutherland, 2013;Johnson 2012). As globalisation, innovation, competition and social pressures produce increasingly complicated environments, paradox becomes a powerful lens for understanding and managing organisational tensions (Smith & Lewis, 2011).…”

“…It thus becomes a management quandary as to which combination of approaches is the most effective for a given situation (Gilbert & Sutherland, 2013). The objectives of this study are to identify the key factors that drive the adoption of internal competition and internal collaboration within organisations, assess the positive and negative outcomes that can result from the two approaches and investigate whether the use of internal collaboration and internal competition varies between executive and non-executive levels.…”

“…Such tensions are inherent and persistent within high performing organisations and it is management's deliberate and purposeful response to these paradoxical tensions that will ensure organizational performance over time (Lusher & Lewis, 2008;Smith & Lewis, 2011). Gilbert and Sutherland (2013) argue that a combination of seemingly contradictory strategic alternatives could be used advantageously to set an organisation apart from its competitors. This research focuses on the dilemma of two seemingly contradictory management approaches; the tension between internal competition versus internal collaboration.…”