Formal and informal controlFormal c

Formal and informal control

Formal control mechanisms provide a means for addressing routine aspects of a problem by prescribing appropriate behaviours. Rules enable employees to organise their activities to both their own and the organisation’s benefit (Ruekert et al., 1985). However, employees who are controlled exclusively through highly standardised tasks (formal control) tend to be highly efficient but often cannot adapt to changing conditions (Hartline et al., 2000). Kelley et al. (1996), for instance, arrive at the conclusion that the mere adoption of formal control mechanism diminishes the creativity of employees as well as their ability to adapt to non-routine task environments. Moreover, Humphrey and Ashforth (1994) provide empirical evidence that employees who “mindlessly” follow a behaviour script are more likely to make mistakes and less likely to meet the individual needs of their customers. As such, it is recommended to chose to rely on informal controls instead that inspire employees to perform in accordance with company values (Hartline et al., 2000). Informal forms of control yield high clarity to employees which, in turn, increases brand commitment and brand performance (Cravens et al., 1993). Finally, Bowen and Schneider (1985) could show empirically that involving contact employees in the planning and organisation of service activities positively affects customer orientation and service behaviour. Accordingly, it is recommended by several researchers to employ formal and informal control mechanisms simultaneously in order to increase the quality of employees’ behavioural performance. A combination of informal and formal control should provide employees with the information needed to perform their jobs adequately, and thus eliminate incompatibilities in communicated expectations (Cravens et al., 1993; Hartline et al., 2000). One the basis of this reasoning, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Kontrol formal dan informalFormal control mechanisms provide a means for addressing routine aspects of a problem by prescribing appropriate behaviours. Rules enable employees to organise their activities to both their own and the organisation’s benefit (Ruekert et al., 1985). However, employees who are controlled exclusively through highly standardised tasks (formal control) tend to be highly efficient but often cannot adapt to changing conditions (Hartline et al., 2000). Kelley et al. (1996), for instance, arrive at the conclusion that the mere adoption of formal control mechanism diminishes the creativity of employees as well as their ability to adapt to non-routine task environments. Moreover, Humphrey and Ashforth (1994) provide empirical evidence that employees who “mindlessly” follow a behaviour script are more likely to make mistakes and less likely to meet the individual needs of their customers. As such, it is recommended to chose to rely on informal controls instead that inspire employees to perform in accordance with company values (Hartline et al., 2000). Informal forms of control yield high clarity to employees which, in turn, increases brand commitment and brand performance (Cravens et al., 1993). Finally, Bowen and Schneider (1985) could show empirically that involving contact employees in the planning and organisation of service activities positively affects customer orientation and service behaviour. Accordingly, it is recommended by several researchers to employ formal and informal control mechanisms simultaneously in order to increase the quality of employees’ behavioural performance. A combination of informal and formal control should provide employees with the information needed to perform their jobs adequately, and thus eliminate incompatibilities in communicated expectations (Cravens et al., 1993; Hartline et al., 2000). One the basis of this reasoning, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Kontrol formal dan informal mekanisme kontrol formal yang menyediakan sarana untuk mengatasi aspek rutin masalah dengan resep perilaku yang sesuai. Aturan memungkinkan karyawan untuk mengatur kegiatan mereka baik mereka sendiri dan manfaat organisasi (Ruekert et al., 1985). Namun, karyawan yang dikendalikan secara eksklusif melalui tugas yang sangat standar (kontrol formal) cenderung sangat efisien tetapi sering tidak bisa beradaptasi dengan perubahan kondisi (Hartline et al., 2000). Kelley et al. (1996), misalnya, sampai pada kesimpulan bahwa adopsi hanya mekanisme kontrol resmi mengurangi kreativitas karyawan serta kemampuan mereka untuk beradaptasi dengan lingkungan tugas non-rutin. Selain itu, Humphrey dan Ashforth (1994) memberikan bukti empiris bahwa karyawan yang "tanpa berpikir" mengikuti naskah perilaku lebih mungkin untuk membuat kesalahan dan kurang mungkin untuk memenuhi kebutuhan individu pelanggan mereka. Dengan demikian, disarankan untuk memilih mengandalkan kontrol informal yang bukan yang menginspirasi karyawan untuk melakukan sesuai dengan nilai-nilai perusahaan (Hartline et al., 2000). Bentuk informal kontrol hasil kejelasan tinggi kepada karyawan yang, pada gilirannya, meningkatkan komitmen merek dan kinerja merek (Cravens et al., 1993). Akhirnya, Bowen dan Schneider (1985) bisa menunjukkan secara empiris bahwa melibatkan karyawan kontak dalam perencanaan dan pengorganisasian kegiatan pelayanan berpengaruh positif terhadap orientasi pelanggan dan perilaku pelayanan. Oleh karena itu, dianjurkan oleh beberapa peneliti untuk mempekerjakan mekanisme kontrol formal dan informal secara bersamaan dalam rangka meningkatkan kualitas kinerja perilaku karyawan. Kombinasi pengendalian informal dan formal harus menyediakan karyawan dengan informasi yang dibutuhkan untuk melakukan pekerjaan mereka secara memadai, dan dengan demikian menghilangkan kompatibel ekspektasi dikomunikasikan (Cravens et al, 1993;. Hartline et al, 2000.). Salah satu dasar alasan ini, kami mengusulkan hipotesis berikut: