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: