IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v6y2018i2p32-d139502.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Under What Conditions Do Rules-Based and Capability-Based Management Modes Dominate?

Author

Listed:
  • Lukas Michel

    (Agility Insights AG, c/o KD Zug Treuhand AG, Untermüli 7, Postfach 7444, 6302 Zug, Switzerland)

  • Johanna Anzengruber

    (Health-, Social- and Public Management Department, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Garnisonstrasse 21, A-4020 Linz, Austria)

  • Marco Wölfle

    (Center for Real Estate Studies und VWA Business School, Steinbeis University Berlin, Eisenbahnstraße 56, D-79098 Freiburg, Germany)

  • Nick Hixson

    (Hixsons Limited, 24 Cecil Avenue, Bournemouth, Dorset BH8 9EJ, UK)

Abstract

Despite real changes in the work place and the negative consequences of prevailing hierarchical structures with rigid management systems, little attention has yet been paid to shifting management modes to accommodate the dynamics of the external environment, particularly when a firm’s operating environment demands a high degree of flexibility. Building on the resource-based view as a basis for competitive advantage, we posit that differences in the stability of an organization’s environment and the degree of managerial control explain variations in the management mode used in firms. Unlike other studies which mainly focus on either the dynamics of the external environment or management control, we have developed a theoretical model combining both streams of research, in a context frame to describe under what conditions firms engage in rules-based, change-based, engagement-based and capability-based management modes. To test our theoretical framework, we conducted a survey with 54 firms in various industries and nations on how their organizations cope with a dynamic environment and what management style they used in response. Our study reveals that the appropriate mode can be determined by analyzing purpose, motivation, knowledge and information, as well as the degree of complexity, volatility and uncertainty the firm is exposed to. With our framework, we attempt to advance the understanding of when organizations should adapt their management style to the changing business environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Lukas Michel & Johanna Anzengruber & Marco Wölfle & Nick Hixson, 2018. "Under What Conditions Do Rules-Based and Capability-Based Management Modes Dominate?," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:6:y:2018:i:2:p:32-:d:139502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/6/2/32/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/6/2/32/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee Fleming & David M. Waguespack, 2007. "Brokerage, Boundary Spanning, and Leadership in Open Innovation Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 165-180, April.
    2. William G. Ouchi, 1979. "A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(9), pages 833-848, September.
    3. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 1985. "Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 134-149, February.
    4. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    5. Silvio M. Brondoni, 2005. "Managerial Economics and Global Competition," Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, University of Milano-Bicocca, issue 1 Over-Su.
    6. G. Tomas M. Hult & David J. Ketchen, 2001. "Does market orientation matter?: a test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(9), pages 899-906, September.
    7. Carliss Baldwin & Eric von Hippel, 2011. "Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1399-1417, December.
    8. von Krogh, Georg & Spaeth, Sebastian & Lakhani, Karim R., 2003. "Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1217-1241, July.
    9. Kevin J. Boudreau & Nicola Lacetera & Karim R. Lakhani, 2011. "Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 843-863, May.
    10. Laura B. Cardinal & Sim B. Sitkin & Chris P. Long, 2004. "Balancing and Rebalancing in the Creation and Evolution of Organizational Control," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 411-431, August.
    11. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.
    12. Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & Gerry McNamara, 2001. "Controlling Decision-Making Practice in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 484-501, August.
    13. Daniela Salvioni, 2005. "Corporate Governance, Management Control and Global Competition," Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, University of Milano-Bicocca, issue 1 Over-Su.
    14. Mauro Sciarelli, 2008. "Resource-Based Theory and Market-Driven Management," Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, University of Milano-Bicocca, issue 2 Market-.
    15. Pfeffer, Jeffrey, 1997. "New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and Prospects," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195114348.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlos Pérez-Vallejo & Juan José Fernández-Muñoz, 2019. "Quality of Leadership and Organizational Climate in a Sample of Spanish Workers. The Moderation and Mediation Effect of Recognition and Teamwork," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-10, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen K. Kim & Amrit Tiwana, 2016. "Chicken or egg? Sequential complementarity among salesforce control mechanisms," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 316-333, May.
    2. Karim R. Lakhani & Hila Lifshitz-Assaf & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Open innovation and organizational boundaries: task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation," Chapters, in: Anna Grandori (ed.), Handbook of Economic Organization, chapter 19, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Yasemin Kor & Joseph Mahoney & Sharon Watson, 2008. "The effects of demand, competitive, and technological uncertainty on board monitoring and institutional ownership of IPO firms," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 12(3), pages 239-259, August.
    4. Anja Schulze & Stefano Brusoni, 2022. "How dynamic capabilities change ordinary capabilities: Reconnecting attention control and problem‐solving," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2447-2477, December.
    5. Sandeep Rustagi & William R. King & Laurie J. Kirsch, 2008. "Predictors of Formal Control Usage in IT Outsourcing Partnerships," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 126-143, June.
    6. Christian Jung-Gehling & Erik Strauss, 2018. "A Contemporary Concept of Organizational Control: Its Dependence on Shared Values and Impact on Motivation," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 70(4), pages 341-374, November.
    7. Rob Gleasure & Kieran Conboy & Lorraine Morgan, 2019. "Talking Up a Storm: How Backers Use Public Discourse to Exert Control in Crowdfunded Systems Development Projects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 447-465, June.
    8. Johnson, William H.A., 2011. "Managing university technology development using organizational control theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 842-852, July.
    9. Becker, Markus C. & Rullani, Francesco & Zirpoli, Francesco, 2021. "The role of digital artefacts in early stages of distributed innovation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    10. Turner, Karynne L. & Monti, Alberto & Annosi, Maria Carmela, 2021. "Disentangling the effects of organizational controls on innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 57-69.
    11. Downes, Rebecca & Daellenbach, Urs & Donnelly, Noelle, 2023. "Remote control: Attitude monitoring and informal control in distributed teams," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    12. Rauter, Romana & Globocnik, Dietfried & Baumgartner, Rupert J., 2023. "The role of organizational controls to advance sustainability innovation performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    13. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    14. Jetta Frost & Rick Vogel & Khaled Bagban, 2016. "Managing Interdependence in Multi-business Organizations," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 17(2), pages 225-260, August.
    15. Orelj, Ana & Torfason, Magnus Thor, 2022. "They didn't ask: Online innovation communities as a latent dynamic capability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    16. Yang, Feifei & Shinkle, George A. & Goudsmit, Mirjam, 2022. "The efficacy of organizational control interactions: External environmental uncertainty as a critical contingency," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 855-868.
    17. Gregory D. Moody & Laurie J. Kirsch & Sandra A. Slaughter & Brian Kimball Dunn & Qin Weng, 2016. "Facilitating the Transformational: An Exploration of Control in Cyberinfrastructure Projects and the Discovery of Field Control," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 324-346, June.
    18. Emil Inauen & Margit Osterloh & Bruno Frey & Fabian Homberg, 2015. "How a multiple orientation of control reduces governance failures: a focus on monastic auditing," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(4), pages 763-796, November.
    19. Markus Kreutzer & Laura B. Cardinal & Jorge Walter & Christoph Lechner, 2016. "Formal and Informal Control as Complement or Substitute? The Role of the Task Environment," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 235-255, December.
    20. Jorge Walter & Markus Kreutzer & Karin Kreutzer, 2021. "Setting the Tone for the Team: A Multi‐Level Analysis of Managerial Control, Peer Control, and their Consequences for Job Satisfaction and Team Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 849-878, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:6:y:2018:i:2:p:32-:d:139502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.