Hubbry Logo
Control (management)Control (management)Main
Open search
Control (management)
Community hub
Control (management)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Control (management)
Control (management)
Control (management)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Control is a function of management that assists in identifying errors and taking corrective actions. This minimizes deviation from standards and ensures that the stated goals of the organization are achieved effectively.

According to modern concepts, control is a proactive action; earlier concepts of control were only used when errors were detected. Control in management includes setting standards, measuring actual performance, and taking corrective action in decision-making.

Definition

[edit]

In 1916, Henri Fayol formulated one of the first definitions of control as it pertains to management:[1]

Control of an undertaking consists of seeing that everything is being carried out in accordance with the plan which has been adopted, the orders which have been given, and the principles which have been laid down. Its objective is to point out mistakes so that they may be rectified and prevented from recurring.

According to E. F. L. Brech:

Control is checking current performance against pre-determined standards contained in the plans, with a view to ensuring adequate progress and satisfactory performance.

According to Harold Koontz:

Controlling is the measurement and correction of performance to make sure that enterprise objectives and the plans devised to attain them are accomplished.

According to Stafford Beer:

Management is the profession of control.

Robert J. Mockler presented a more comprehensive definition of managerial control:[2]

Management control can be defined as a systematic torture by business management to compare performance to predetermined standards, plans, or objectives to determine whether performance is in line with these standards and presumably to take any remedial action required to see that human and other corporate resources are being used as effectively and efficiently as possible in achieving corporate objectives.

Control can also be defined as "that function of the system that adjusts operations as needed to achieve the plan, or to maintain variations from system objectives within allowable limits."[citation needed] The control subsystem functions in close harmony with the operating system. The degree to which they interact depends on the nature of the operating system and its objectives. Stability refers to a system's ability to maintain a pattern of output without wide fluctuations. The rapidity of response pertains to the speed with which a system can correct variations and return to the expected output.[3]

A political election can illustrate the concept of control and the importance of feedback. Each party organizes a campaign to get its candidate selected and outlines a plan to inform the public about both the candidate's credentials and the party's platform. As the election nears, opinion polls furnish feedback about the effectiveness of the campaign and about each candidate's chances of winning. Depending on the nature of this feedback, certain adjustments in strategy and/or tactics can be made in an attempt to achieve the desired result.

From these definitions, it can be stated that there is a close link between planning and controlling. Planning is a process by which an organization's objectives and the methods to achieve the objectives are established, and controlling is a process that measures and directs the actual performance against the planned goals of the organization. Thus, goals and objectives are often referred to as Siamese twins of management. The managerial function of management and correction of performance to make sure that enterprise objectives and the goals devised to attain them are accomplished.

The absence of a right to control the actions or working practices of person engaged at work is generally an indication that the working relationship with that person is covered by a contract for services and is not a form of employment.[4]

Characteristics

[edit]
  • Control is a continuous process
  • Control is closely linked with planning
  • Control is a tool for achieving organizational activities
  • Control is an end-to-end process
  • Control compares actual performance with planned performance*
  • Control points out the error in the execution process
  • Control minimizes cost
  • Control achieves the standard
  • Control saves time
  • Control helps management monitor performance
  • Control compares performance against standards
  • Control is action oriented

Elements

[edit]

The four basic elements in a control system are:

  1. the characteristic or condition to be controlled
  2. the sensor
  3. the comparator
  4. the activator

They occur in the same sequence and maintain consistent relationships with each other in every system.[3]

The first element is the characteristic or condition of the operating system to be measured. Specific characteristics are selected because a correlation exists between them and the system's performance. A characteristic can be the output of the system during any stage of processing (e.g. the heat energy produced by a furnace), or it may be a condition that is the result of the system (e.g. the temperature in the room which has changed because of the heat generated by the furnace). In an elementary school system, the hours a teacher works or the gain in knowledge demonstrated by the students on a national examination are examples of characteristics that may be selected for measurement, or control.

The second element of control, the sensor, is a means for measuring the characteristic. For example, in a home heating system, this device would be the thermostat, and in a quality-control system, this measurement might be performed by a visual inspection of the product.

The third element of control, the comparator, determines the need for correction by comparing what is occurring with what has been planned. Some deviation from the plan is usual and expected, but when variations are beyond those considered acceptable, corrective action is required. It involves a sort of preventative action that indicates that good control is being achieved.

The fourth element of control, the activator, is the corrective action taken to return the system to its expected output. The actual person, device, or method used to direct corrective inputs into the operating system may take a variety of forms. It may be a hydraulic controller positioned by a solenoid or electric motor in response to an electronic error signal, an employee directed to rework the parts that failed to pass quality inspection, or a school principal who decides to buy additional books to provide for an increased number of students. As long as a plan is performed within allowable limits, corrective action is not necessary; however, this seldom occurs in practice.[citation needed]

Information is the medium of control, because the flow of sensory data and later the flow of corrective information allow a characteristic or condition of the system to be controlled.[5]

Controlled characteristic or condition

[edit]

The primary requirement of a control system is that it maintains the level and kind of output necessary to achieve the system's objectives.[6] It is usually impractical to control every feature and condition associated with the system's output. Therefore, the choice of the controlled item (and appropriate information about it) is extremely important. There should be a direct correlation between the controlled item and the system's operation. In other words, control of the selected characteristic should have a direct relationship to the goal or objective of the system.

Sensor

[edit]

After the characteristic is sensed, or measured, information pertinent to control is fed back. Exactly what information needs to be transmitted and also the language that will best facilitate the communication process and reduce the possibility of distortion in transmission must be carefully considered. Information that is to be compared with the standard, or plan, should be expressed in the same terms or language as in the original plan to facilitate decision making. Using machine methods (computers) may require extensive translation of the information. Since optimal languages for computation and for human review are not always the same, the relative ease of translation may be a significant factor in selecting the units of measurement or the language unit in the sensing element.

In many instances, the measurement may be sampled rather than providing a complete and continuous feedback of information about the operation. A sampling procedure suggests measuring some segment or portion of the operation that will represent the total.[2]

Comparison with standard

[edit]

In a social system, the norms of acceptable behaviour become the standard against which so-called deviant behaviour may be judged. Regulations and laws provide a more formal collection of information for society. Social norms change, but very slowly. In contrast, the standards outlined by a formal law can be changed from one day to the next through revision, discontinuation, or replacement by another. Information about deviant behaviour becomes the basis for controlling social activity. Output information is compared with the standard or norm and significant deviations are noted. In an industrial example, frequency distribution (a tabulation of the number of times a given characteristic occurs within the sample of products being checked) may be used to show the average quality, the spread, and the comparison of output with a standard.

If there is a significant difference between output and plan that cannot be corrected, the system is "out of control." This means that the objectives of the system are not feasible in relation to the capabilities of the present design. Either the objectives must be re-evaluated or the system redesigned to add new capacity or capability. For example, drug trafficking has been increasing in some cities at an alarming rate. The citizens must decide whether to revise the police system so as to regain control, or whether to modify the law to reflect a different norm of acceptable behaviour.

Implementor

[edit]

The activator unit responds to the information received from the comparator and initiates corrective action. If the system is a machine-to-machine system, the corrective inputs (decision rules) are designed into the network. When the control relates to a man-to-machine or man-to-man system, however, the individual(s) in charge must evaluate (1) the accuracy of the feedback information, (2) the significance of the variation, and (3) what corrective inputs will restore the system to a reasonable degree of stability. Once the decision has been made to direct new inputs into the system, the actual process may be relatively easy. A small amount of energy can change the operation of jet airplanes, automatic steel mills, and hydroelectric power plants. The pilot presses a button, and the landing gear of the airplane goes up or down; the operator of a steel mill pushes a lever, and a ribbon of white-hot steel races through the plant; a worker at a control board directs the flow of electrical energy throughout a regional network of stations and substations. It takes but a small amount of control energy to release or stop large quantities of input.[5]

The comparator may be located far from the operating system, although at least some of the elements must be in close proximity to operations. For example, the measurement (the sensory element) is usually at the point of operations. The measurement information can be transmitted to a distant point for comparison with the standard (comparator), and when deviations occur, the correcting input can be released from the distant point. However, the input (activator) will be located at the operating system. This ability to control from afar means that aircraft can be flown by remote control, dangerous manufacturing processes can be operated from a safe distance, and national organizations can be directed from centralized headquarters in Dublin, Ireland.

- Kenard E. White

Process

[edit]

Step 1. Establishment of Standard.

Standards are the criteria against which actual performance will be measured. Standards are set in both quantitative and qualitative terms.

Step 2. Measurement of actual performance

Performance is measured in an objective and reliable manner. It should be checked in the same unit in which the standards are set.

Step 3. Comparing actual performance with standards.

This step involves comparing the actual performance with standards laid down in order to find the deviations. For example, performance of a salesman in terms of unit sold in a week can be easily measured against the standard output for the week.

Step 4. Analysis the cause of deviations.

Managers must determine why standards were not met. This step also involves determining whether more control is necessary or if the standard should be changed.

Step 5. Taking corrective action.

After the reasons for deviations have been determined, managers can then develop solutions for issues with meeting the standards and make changes to processes or behaviors.

Classifications

[edit]

Control may be grouped according to three general classifications:[3]

  1. the nature of the information flow designed into the system (open- or closed-loop control)
  2. the kind of components included in the design (man or machine control systems)
  3. the relationship of control to the decision process (organizational or operational control).

Open- and closed-loop control

[edit]

A street-lighting system controlled by a timing device is an example of an open-loop system. At a certain time each evening, a mechanical device closes the circuit and energy flows through the electric lines to light the lamps. Note, however, that the timing mechanism is an independent unit and is not measuring the objective function of the lighting system. If the lights should be needed on a dark, stormy day the timing device would not recognize this need and therefore would not activate energy inputs. Corrective properties may sometimes be built into the controller (for example, to modify the time the lights are turned on as the days grow shorter or longer), but this would not close the loop. In another instance, the sensing, comparison, or adjustment may be made through action taken by an individual who is not part of the system. For example, the lights may be turned on by someone who happens to pass by and recognizes the need for additional light.

If control is exercised as a result of the operation rather than because of outside or predetermined arrangements, it is a closed-loop system. A home thermostat is an example of a control device in a closed-loop system. When the room temperature drops below the desired point, the control mechanism closes the circuit to start the furnace and the temperature rises. The furnace is deactivated as the temperature reaches the preselected level. The significant difference between this type of system and an open-loop system is that the control device is an element of the system it serves and measures the performance of the system. In other words, all four control elements are integral to the specific system.

An essential part of a closed-loop system is feedback; that is, the output of the system is measured continually through the item controlled, and the input is modified to reduce any difference or error toward zero. Many of the patterns of information flow in organizations are found to have the nature of closed loops, which use feedback. The reason for such a condition is apparent when one recognizes that any system, if it is to achieve a predetermined goal, must have available to it at all times an indication of its degree of attainment. In general, every goal-seeking system employs feedback.[3]

Human and machine control

[edit]

The elements of control are easy to identify in machine systems. For example, the characteristic to be controlled might be some variable like speed or temperature, and the sensing device could be a speedometer or a thermometer. An expectation of precision exists because the characteristic is quantifiable and the standard and the normal variation to be expected can be described in exact terms. In automatic machine systems, inputs of information are used in a process of continual adjustment to achieve output specifications. When even a small variation from the standard occurs, the correction process begins. The automatic system is highly structured, designed to accept certain kinds of input and produce specific output, and programmed to regulate the transformation of inputs within a narrow range of variation.[7]

For an illustration of mechanical control: as the load on a steam engine increases and the engine starts to slow down, the regulator reacts by opening a valve that releases additional inputs of steam energy. This new input returns the engine to the desired number of revolutions per minute. This type of mechanical control is crude in comparison to the more sophisticated electronic control systems in everyday use. Consider the complex missile-guidance systems that measure the actual course according to predetermined mathematical calculations and make almost instantaneous corrections to direct the missile to its target.

Machine systems can be complex because of the sophisticated technology, whereas control of people is complex because the elements of control are difficult to determine. In human control systems, the relationship between objectives and associated characteristics is often vague; the measurement of the characteristic may be extremely subjective; the expected standard is difficult to define; and the amount of new inputs required is impossible to quantify. To illustrate, let us refer once more to a formalized social system in which deviant behaviour is controlled through a process of observed violation of the existing law (sensing), court hearings and trials (comparison with standard), incarceration when the accused is found guilty (correction), and release from custody after rehabilitation of the individual has occurred.[7]

The speed limit established for freeway driving is one standard of performance that is quantifiable, but even in this instance, the degree of permissible variation and the amount of the actual variation are often a subject of disagreement between the patrolman and the suspected violator. The complexity of society is reflected in many laws and regulations, which establish the general standards for economic, political, and social operations. A citizen may not know or understand the law and consequently would not know whether or not he was guilty of a violation.

Most organized systems are some combination of man and machine; some elements of control may be performed by machine whereas others are accomplished by man. In addition, some standards may be precisely structured whereas others may be little more than general guidelines with wide variations expected in output. Man must act as the controller when measurement is subjective and judgment is required. Machines such as computers are incapable of making exceptions from the specified control criteria regardless of how much a particular case might warrant special consideration. A pilot acts in conjunction with computers and automatic pilots to fly large jets. In the event of unexpected weather changes, or possible collision with another plane, he must intercede and assume direct control.[5]

Organizational and operational control

[edit]
"Operational control" redirects here. For processes ensuring efficiency/effectiveness of business entities, see Internal control.

The concept of organizational control is implicit in the bureaucratic theory of Max Weber. Associated with this theory are such concepts as "span of control", "closeness of supervision", and "hierarchical authority". Weber's view tends to include all levels or types of organizational control as being the same. Other writers have tended to differentiate the control process between that which emphasizes the nature of the organizational or systems design and that which deals with daily operations. The performance of a system is "evaluated" to determine effectiveness and efficiency in the design or failure. The system is operated and "controlled" with respect to the daily inputs of material, information, and energy. In both instances, the elements of feedback are present, but organizational control tends to review and evaluate the nature and arrangement of components in the system, whereas operational control tends to adjust the daily inputs.

The direction for organizational control comes from the goals and strategic plans of the organization. General plans are translated into specific performance measures such as share of the market, earnings, return on investment, and budgets. The process of organizational control is to review and evaluate the performance of the system against these established norms. Rewards for meeting or exceeding standards may range from special recognition to salary increases or promotions. On the other hand, a failure to meet expectations may signal the need to reorganize or redesign.[8]

In organizational control, the approach used in the program of review and evaluation depends on the reason for the evaluation — that is, is it because the system is not effective (accomplishing its objectives)? Is the system failing to achieve an expected standard of efficiency? Is the evaluation being conducted because of a breakdown or failure in operations? Is it merely a periodic audit-and-review process?

When a system has failed or is in great difficulty, special diagnostic techniques may be required to isolate the trouble areas and to identify the causes of the difficulty. It is appropriate to investigate areas that have been troublesome before or areas where some measure of performance can be quickly identified. For example, if an organization's output backlog builds rapidly, it is logical to check first to see if the problem is due to such readily obtainable measures as increased demand or to a drop in available man hours. When a more detailed analysis is necessary, a systematic procedure should be followed.[8]

In contrast to organizational control, operational control serves to regulate the day-to-day output relative to schedules, specifications, and costs. Is the output of product or service the proper quality and is it available as scheduled? Are inventories of raw materials, goods-in-process, and finished products being purchased and produced in the desired quantities? Are the costs associated with the transformation process in line with cost estimates? Is the information needed in the transformation process available in the right form and at the right time? Is the energy resource being utilized efficiently?

The most difficult task of management concerns monitoring the behaviour of individuals, comparing performance to some standard, and providing rewards or punishment as indicated. Sometimes this control over people relates entirely to their output. For example, a manager might not be concerned with the behavior of a salesman as long as sales were as high as expected. In other instances, close supervision of the salesman might be appropriate if achieving customer satisfaction were one of the sales organization's main objectives.

The larger the unit, the more likely that the control characteristic will be related to some output goal. It also follows that if it is difficult or impossible to identify the actual output of individuals, it is better to measure the performance of the entire group. This means that individuals' levels of motivation and the measurement of their performance become subjective judgments made by the supervisor. Controlling output also suggests the difficulty of controlling individuals' performance and relating this to the total system's objectives.[8]

Problems

[edit]

The perfect plan could be outlined if every possible variation of input could be anticipated and if the system would operate as predicted. This kind of planning is neither realistic, economical, nor feasible for most business systems. If it were feasible, planning requirements would be so complex that the system would be out of date before it could be operated. Therefore, we design control into systems. This requires more thought in the systems design but allows more flexibility of operations and makes it possible to operate a system using unpredictable components and undetermined input. Still, the design and effective operation of control are not without problems.

The objective of the system is to perform some specified function. The objective of organizational control is to see that the specified function is achieved. The objective of operational control is to ensure that variations in daily output are maintained within prescribed limits.

It is one thing to design a system that contains all of the elements of control, and quite another to make it operate true to the best objectives of design. Operating "in control" or "with plan" does not guarantee optimum performance. For example, the plan may not make the best use of the inputs of materials, energy, or information — in other words, the system may not be designed to operate efficiently. Some of the more typical problems relating to control include the difficulty of measurement, the problem of timing information flow, and the setting of proper standards.[8]

When objectives are not limited to quantitative output, the measurement of system effectiveness is difficult to make and subsequently perplexing to evaluate. Many of the characteristics pertaining to output do not lend themselves to quantitative measurement. This is true particularly when inputs of human energy cannot be related directly to output. The same situation applies to machines and other equipment associated with human involvement, when output is not in specific units. In evaluating man-machine or human-oriented systems, psychological and sociological factors obviously do not easily translate into quantifiable terms. For example, how does mental fatigue affect the quality or quantity of output? And, if it does, is mental fatigue a function of the lack of a challenging assignment or the fear of a potential injury?

Subjective inputs may be transferred into numerical data, but there is always the danger of an incorrect appraisal and transfer, and the danger that the analyst may assume undue confidence in such data after they have been quantified. Let us suppose, for example, that the decisions made by an executive are rated from 1 to 10, 10 being the perfect decision. After determining the ranking for each decision, adding these, and dividing by the total number of decisions made, the average ranking would indicate a particular executive's score in his decision-making role. On the basis of this score, judgments — which could be quite erroneous — might be made about his decision-making effectiveness. One executive with a ranking of 6.75 might be considered more effective than another who had a ranking of 6.25, and yet the two managers may have made decisions under different circumstances and conditions. External factors over which neither executive had any control may have influenced the difference in "effectiveness".[8]

Quantifying human behaviour, despite its extreme difficulty, subjectivity, and imprecision in relation to measuring physical characteristics is the most prevalent and important measurement made in large systems. The behaviour of individuals ultimately dictates the success or failure of every man-made system.

Information flow

[edit]
Oscillation and Feedback

Another problem of control relates to the improper timing of information introduced into the feedback channel. Improper timing can occur in both computerized and human control systems, either by mistakes in measurement or in judgment. The more rapid the system's response to an error signal, the more likely it is that the system could over adjust; yet the need for prompt action is important because any delay in providing corrective input could also be crucial. A system generating feedback inconsistent with current need will tend to fluctuate and will not adjust in the desired manner.

The most serious problem in information flow arises when the delay in feedback is exactly one-half cycle, for then the corrective action is superimposed on a variation from norm which, at that moment, is in the same direction as that of the correction. This causes the system to overcorrect, and then if the reverse adjustment is made out of cycle, to correct too much in the other direction, and so on until the system fluctuates ("oscillates") out of control. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 1. "Oscillation and Feedback". If, at Point A, the trend below standard is recognized and new inputs are added, but not until Point B, the system will overreact and go beyond the allowable limits. Again, if this is recognized at Point C, but inputs are not withdrawn until Point D, it will cause the system to drop below the lower limit of allowable variation.[8]

One solution to this problem rests in anticipation, which involves measuring not only the change but also the rate of change. The correction is outlined as a factor of the type and rate of the error. The difficulty also might be overcome by reducing the time lag between the measurement of the output and the adjustment to input. If a trend can be indicated, a time lead can be introduced to compensate for the time lag, bringing about consistency between the need for correction and the type and magnitude of the indicated action. It is usually more effective for an organization to maintain continuous measurement of its performance and to make small adjustments in operations constantly (this assumes a highly sensitive control system). Information feedback, consequently, should be timely and correct to be effective. That is, the information should provide an accurate indication of the status of the system.[3]

Contemporary challenges to management control systems are systematised by Lambovska and Angelova-Stanimirova in.[9]

Setting standards

[edit]

Setting the proper standards or control limits is a problem in many systems. Parents are confronted with this dilemma in expressing what they expect of their children, and business managers face the same issue in establishing standards that will be acceptable to employees. Some theorists have proposed that workers be allowed to set their own standards, on the assumption that when people establish their own goals, they are more apt to accept and achieve them.

Standards should be as precise as possible and communicated to all persons concerned. Moreover, communication alone is not sufficient; understanding is necessary. In human systems, standards tend to be poorly defined and the allowable range of deviation from standard also indefinite. For example, how many hours each day should a professor be expected to be available for student consultation? Or, what kind of behavior should be expected by students in the classroom? Discretion and personal judgment play a large part in such systems, to determine whether corrective action should be taken.

Perhaps the most difficult problem in human systems is the unresponsiveness of individuals to indicated correction. This may take the form of opposition and subversion to control, or it may be related to the lack of defined responsibility or authority to take action. Leadership and positive motivation then become vital ingredients in achieving the proper response to input requirements.

Most control problems relate to design; thus the solution to these problems must start at that point. Automatic control systems, provided that human intervention is possible to handle exceptions, offer the greatest promise. There is a danger, however, that we may measure characteristics that do not represent effective performance (as in the case of the speaker who requested that all of the people who could not hear what he was saying should raise their hands), or that improper information may be communicated.[8]

Importance of control

[edit]
  1. Motivation for efficient employees
  2. For complete discipline
  3. Helpful in future planning
  4. Aids efficiency
  5. Decrease in risk
  6. Helpful in coordination

Limitations

[edit]

1. Difficult to set up quantitative standards: Controlling loses its benefits when standards and norms cannot be explained in volume statistics. Human behaviour, job satisfaction, and employee morale are some of the factors that are not well managed by quantitative measurement. The control loses some of its usefulness when it is not possible to define a situation in terms of numbers. This makes measuring performance and comparing it to benchmarks a difficult task. It is not an easy task to set principles for human work and set standards for competence and how to maintain one's level of satisfaction. In such cases, it depends on the decision of the manager. This is especially true of job satisfaction, employee behaviour and morale. For example, the task of measuring the quality of behaviour of employees is qualitative. It cannot be measured directly. To measure the behaviour of employees, absenteeism, conflict frequency, turnover etc. can be taken into account. If all these measures have a high proportion, it can be said that the behaviour of the employees in the institution is not great. It is clear that it is not possible to set criteria for all projects and suitable models are not completely accurate.

2. Less control on external controls: Any project operating in another state of the country under a government system cannot stop development. In addition, no company can manage the availability of technology, the latest acquisition of information technology and high competition in the market, etc. There are some issues that are not under the control of management or the organization. As such, the company cannot control external factors such as government policy, technological change, competition and anything that is not under the control of the company and makes things unmanageable. Policies need to be put in place through planning to ensure staff re-energizes improvements. It is incorrect to say that the manager by completing the management process may warn the organization. The manager can control internal factors (e.g. human power, infrastructure, infrastructure, etc.) but cannot control external factors (e.g. political, social change, competition, etc.)

3. Restrictions by employees: When a manager is used to managing his or her subordinates, some of his or her colleagues may refuse and report as directed by the manager or company. This usually happens because you are in control of the rules with or without discussion. For example, users in this field may resist when the GPS or control area of a control system is tracking their location. They see it as a restriction on their freedom. Employees are restricted or restricted in their freedom. Opponents of coping with this challenge are not under the control of the company in some respects. For example, workers may complain while kept under surveillance with the help of CCTV. Employees can resist using the camera for monitoring them. An employer may force employees but they cannot force them to work based on rules and regulations. The business environment is constantly changing. A new regulatory framework must be used to reverse this change. However, users are opposed to these systems. For example, if large company employees have CCTV (Close Circuit TV) to control their work, they will challenge this process.

4. Expensive to install: Create an effective and cost-effective management system because organizations need to have different management levels. Some company executives are more valuable than the company. Or it is the duty of their practice to declare the cost of managing a higher order than their own business. Controlling is expensive because it involves much money, time and effort. Systemic regulation is expensive because it affects more stressful movements. This involves much money, time and effort, which means it is very expensive. It is also important to call other employees who add to their value. Small businesses cannot set up cheap systems. To determine the performance of all employees or employees in an organization, proper equipment is required to send reports to management. In order to improve management for the company with effective control, it is necessary to spend much money. Small organizations cannot afford these. Therefore, it is useful only for large companies and costly for small and expensive organizations.

5. Overcontrolling can lead to employee turnover: However, legal aid covers a number of effective procedures if an employee has complaints; if the employee becomes upset by overcontrolling he might get irritated and moves to another company. In the current situation, managers often keep their employees under control several times to monitor their behaviour on the ground. This can be a hands-on example, especially in the case of new members and facilitates a variety of organizational changes. With too much control, employees feel their freedom is being violated. They do not want to work for an organization who do not let them work according to their preferences. That is why they go to other companies that do give them freedom. It takes much time and effort to manage the system.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Control (management)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Control in management, often referred to as the controlling function, is a core process in organizational administration that involves setting performance standards, measuring actual results against those standards, identifying deviations, and implementing corrective actions to ensure that business objectives are achieved. This function is one of the five primary functions of —planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling—originally outlined by in the early 20th century as essential for effective coordination and efficiency in enterprises. At its essence, control serves to align employee efforts with strategic goals, mitigate risks, and foster accountability by regulating the labor process and addressing potential conflicts between individual and organizational interests. The importance of control in management lies in its role as a feedback mechanism that enables managers to monitor progress, adapt to changing conditions, and maintain operational stability, ultimately contributing to long-term organizational success and competitiveness. Without effective control, even well-planned strategies can falter due to unaddressed variances in , , or external factors. Historically, the concept evolved from principles introduced by Frederick Taylor in 1906, which emphasized measurable goals and supervision, to more integrated systems in the mid-20th century, such as those described by Fayol and later refined by scholars like Robert Anthony, who distinguished between , management control, and operational control. Key elements of management control systems include planning (establishing benchmarks), performance measurement (gathering data on outputs), and feedback loops (analyzing discrepancies and adjusting actions), often supported by tools like budgets, audits, and performance metrics. Prominent frameworks include William Ouchi's 1979 typology of control mechanisms—market-based (relying on external competition), bureaucratic (through rules and hierarchies), and clan (based on shared values and culture)—which highlight how organizations select controls based on environmental uncertainty and task programmability. In contemporary practice, advanced approaches like the Balanced Scorecard, developed by Kaplan and Norton in 1992, integrate financial and non-financial indicators to provide a holistic view of performance across multiple perspectives, such as customer satisfaction and internal processes. These systems not only ensure compliance and efficiency but also promote innovation by balancing diagnostic (routine monitoring) and interactive (strategic dialogue) controls, as proposed by Robert Simons in 1995.

Fundamentals

Definition

In management, control refers to the systematic process of monitoring organizational activities to ensure they conform to established plans and objectives, while identifying deviations and implementing corrective measures to realign performance with goals. This function enables managers to evaluate outcomes against predetermined standards, thereby facilitating adjustments that enhance and in achieving strategic aims. Unlike mere observation or informal , control emphasizes structured mechanisms—such as performance metrics, feedback loops, and remedial actions—that proactively address discrepancies rather than reacting sporadically to issues. Control is one of the four core functions of , alongside planning, organizing, and leading, where it serves as the culminating step that verifies the execution of prior functions and bridges the gap between intended strategies and actual results. By integrating and correction into daily operations, control ensures that resources are utilized optimally and that organizational goals remain attainable amid changing conditions. This interconnected role underscores control's essential position in the management cycle, transforming abstract plans into measurable accomplishments. The term "control" originates from the Latin contrarotulare, meaning "to check against a register" or counter-roll, reflecting its historical roots in verifying accounts and records for accuracy. In the context of theory, this concept evolved during the from early practices focused on to broader systems emphasizing adaptive oversight in complex organizations.

Historical Development

The concept of control in traces its early roots to the principles of pioneered by in his 1911 work, , where he emphasized time-motion studies to measure worker performance and establish standards through systematic observation and of tasks. Taylor's approach shifted from rule-of-thumb methods to data-driven evaluation, laying the groundwork for performance-based control by identifying optimal work processes and setting benchmarks to monitor deviations. Building on these foundations, formalized control as a core management function in his 1916 book, General and Industrial Management, identifying it as one of five essential elements—alongside , organizing, commanding, and coordinating—to ensure organizational activities aligned with objectives. Fayol described control as the ongoing verification of , with corrective actions to address discrepancies, influencing administrative theory by integrating it into a holistic managerial framework applicable to industrial operations. The mid-20th century saw the infusion of into management control, originating with Norbert Wiener's 1948 publication, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, which introduced feedback loops as mechanisms for self-regulation in complex systems through continuous information exchange. This concept was extended to organizations by in the 1950s, who applied cybernetic principles to design viable systems models for managerial , emphasizing recursive feedback for adaptability in hierarchical structures. Post-1980 developments advanced control through quality-focused paradigms, notably W. Edwards Deming's 1986 book, Out of the Crisis, which promoted (TQM) via and continuous improvement cycles to minimize variations and enhance organizational performance. In the 1990s, the integration of (ERP) systems revolutionized control by enabling real-time data aggregation across functions like finance and , facilitating integrated monitoring and automated adjustments in large-scale enterprises. As of 2025, contemporary management control has shifted toward within agile frameworks, where algorithms forecast risks and optimize in iterative environments, enhancing responsiveness over traditional reactive measures. This evolution integrates AI for proactive deviation detection, supporting scalable agile practices in dynamic organizational settings.

Core Components

Key Elements of a Control System

A , drawing from cybernetic principles, consists of interrelated components that enable organizations to monitor and adjust performance to align with objectives. These elements form a structured framework for detecting deviations and initiating corrective actions, adapting the self-regulating mechanisms of cybernetic systems to organizational contexts. The controlled characteristic represents the specific performance variable or attribute targeted for monitoring and regulation within the . Examples include output , production costs, or levels, where maintaining stability in this variable is essential for . This element defines the focus of the , ensuring that efforts are directed toward measurable aspects critical to organizational goals. The or measurement device serves as the detection mechanism that captures data on the actual state of the controlled characteristic. In organizational settings, this may involve tools such as key performance indicators (KPIs), financial audits, or digital dashboards that provide real-time or periodic readings of performance metrics. For instance, sales tracking software acts as a by recording figures against expected targets. The functions as the evaluative mechanism that assesses deviations by juxtaposing the measured actual performance from the against predefined standards or benchmarks. This generates variance reports or alerts highlighting discrepancies, such as overruns or shortfalls, to signal the need for intervention. In practice, statistical software or managerial reviews perform this comparison to quantify gaps between planned and realized outcomes. The implementor or controller encompasses the actions, personnel, or automated processes responsible for applying corrections to minimize identified deviations. This could involve managers reallocating resources or software algorithms adjusting production schedules to restore alignment with standards. Automated systems, like (ERP) tools, exemplify controllers by executing predefined adjustments without human input. These elements interconnect to form a closed-loop feedback , where output from the implementor influences the controlled characteristic, which is then re-sensed and re-compared iteratively to sustain equilibrium. In an , for example, sensors monitor stock levels, the checks against reorder points, the controller triggers purchase orders, and the loop ensures ongoing balance between without excess or shortages. This cyclical interconnection, rooted in principles, allows organizations to adapt dynamically to internal and external changes.

Characteristics of Effective Control

Effective control systems in management are distinguished by several key qualitative traits that ensure their practicality and success in guiding organizational . These traits enable managers to detect deviations from standards promptly and implement corrective actions without undue disruption. Timeliness is essential, as controls must deliver feedback in real-time or at frequent intervals to facilitate swift adjustments before issues escalate. In dynamic environments, timely information allows managers to respond to variances as they occur, preventing minor problems from becoming major setbacks. Accuracy and reliability form the foundation of trustworthy control, ensuring that performance data is precise, valid, and consistent to avoid decisions based on flawed inputs. Reliable systems incorporate validation mechanisms, such as cross-checks and standardized measurement tools, to minimize error rates and support informed managerial actions. Flexibility allows control systems to adapt to evolving organizational goals, external changes, or unforeseen circumstances, preventing in volatile markets. Rigid controls can hinder , whereas flexible ones, often built with modular components like adjustable sensors, enable reconfiguration without full redesign. Cost-effectiveness requires that the benefits of control—such as savings from deviation corrections and improved —outweigh the expenses of , , and collection. Managers evaluate this through analyses like , ensuring controls target high-impact areas without excessive resource drain. Objectivity ensures controls rely on verifiable, measurable facts rather than subjective interpretations, promoting equitable evaluations and reducing in assessments. Objective metrics, derived from standardized sources, provide impartial insights that foster trust in the system. Acceptance by employees is critical, as controls designed with input from those affected encourage buy-in and minimize resistance, enhancing overall success. Involving staff in the development process aligns controls with practical realities, leading to higher compliance and .

Control Process

Steps in the Control Cycle

The control cycle in provides a structured, sequential framework for ensuring organizational activities align with planned objectives, enabling managers to monitor progress and make timely adjustments. This process, often attributed to early theorists like William H. Newman, who outlined core steps including setting standards, checking performance, and taking corrective action, forms the basis of modern control systems. The cycle emphasizes proactive oversight rather than reactive fixes, fostering efficiency across various organizational functions such as operations and . The first step involves establishing standards, where managers define clear, measurable goals that serve as benchmarks for performance evaluation. These standards might include quantitative targets like annual quotas of $5 million for a sales team or qualitative ones such as rates above 90 percent, ensuring they are specific, achievable, and aligned with broader organizational strategies. Establishing such standards requires input from processes to reflect realistic expectations based on resources and market conditions. Next, managers measure actual performance by systematically collecting data on outcomes using reliable tools and metrics. This phase employs methods like periodic financial reports, production logs, or performance dashboards to gather quantitative and qualitative information, allowing for an objective assessment of how well activities are progressing toward standards. For instance, in a manufacturing setting, metrics such as units produced per shift or defect rates are tracked to quantify output. Accurate measurement is crucial, as it provides the raw data needed for subsequent analysis without which deviations may go unnoticed. The third step entails comparing measured against established standards to identify variances or deviations. This highlights discrepancies, such as actual costs exceeding budgeted amounts by 15 percent in a , using techniques like variance reports or statistical to pinpoint whether shortfalls stem from internal inefficiencies or external factors. The often incorporates a element within the to systematically flag significant differences requiring attention. Such evaluation ensures that minor issues do not escalate, promoting targeted interventions. Following comparison, managers take corrective action by deciding on and implementing measures to address identified deviations. This may involve reallocating resources, such as shifting from underperforming areas to high-priority tasks, or revising processes, like retraining staff to reduce error rates in service delivery. Corrective actions are prioritized based on the severity of variances and their potential impact on goals, aiming to realign swiftly. Effective often includes assigning clear responsibilities to ensure . The cycle concludes with feedback and review, where the outcomes of corrective actions are evaluated to assess their effectiveness and inform future iterations. This step involves analyzing whether adjustments resolved the variances—for example, verifying if cost overruns were mitigated post-reallocation—and using insights to refine standards or processes. Feedback mechanisms, such as post-action audits, close the loop by integrating back into . Inherently cyclical, the control process operates as a continuous loop, with each completion feeding into the next to support ongoing adaptation in dynamic environments. This iterative nature is evident in methodologies like Agile, where Scrum sprints embody the cycle through sprint planning (establishing standards), daily stand-ups (measuring performance), sprint reviews (comparing results), and retrospectives (taking corrective action and providing feedback) to iteratively improve delivery over successive cycles. Such repetition enhances organizational resilience, allowing managers to respond to changes like market shifts without disrupting core operations.

Information Flow in Control

In management control systems, information flow refers to the structured movement of that supports monitoring, , and corrective actions to align organizational activities with strategic objectives. This flow is essential for enabling timely , as it connects operational activities to higher-level oversight, ensuring that deviations from standards are identified and addressed efficiently. The directional flow of information in control systems typically follows a bidirectional , beginning with bottom-up reporting from sensors or operational units that capture , progressing to comparators or analytical units for evaluation, and concluding with top-down directives from decision-makers to implement . Upward flows convey raw or aggregated , such as production outputs or figures, to central points, while downward flows transmit instructions, policies, or adjustments back to operational levels to guide behavior and . This structure facilitates a hierarchical yet interconnected network, where processing at intermediate nodes refines for strategic use. Control systems utilize two primary types of information: quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative information includes measurable metrics like financial ratios (e.g., or rates) that provide objective benchmarks for performance assessment. In contrast, qualitative information encompasses subjective inputs such as employee feedback on process efficiency or analyses, which offer contextual insights into underlying causes of variances. Balancing these types ensures comprehensive control, as quantitative data establishes what is occurring while qualitative data explains why, enhancing the depth of managerial responses. Several barriers can impede effective , including transmission due to manual reporting processes and from excessive data volume, which overwhelms decision-makers and leads to overlooked insights. Organizational hierarchies often mitigate by streamlining reporting chains, while technologies like digital dashboards consolidate data into visual formats for rapid interpretation. For instance, overload is addressed through filtering mechanisms that prioritize relevant metrics, preventing cognitive strain and maintaining flow integrity. In closed-loop control systems, information flow plays a pivotal role by continuously feeding back deviations—identified during the measurement step of the control cycle—into the system for automated or manual corrections, thereby sustaining equilibrium between planned and actual performance. This feedback mechanism ensures that adjustments are responsive, minimizing cumulative errors over time. In the 2020s, there has been a pronounced emphasis on real-time analytics enabled by cloud systems, which process streaming data instantaneously to support proactive interventions, as seen in platforms integrating IoT sensors with cloud computing for dynamic monitoring. Management information systems (MIS) integrate seamlessly with control processes by facilitating bidirectional , allowing seamless exchange between operational inputs and strategic outputs. MIS platforms aggregate upward-flowing operational for while disseminating downward analytical insights and directives, often through integrated that support both real-time querying and historical trend review. This integration enhances control efficacy by reducing and enabling holistic visibility across the .

Classifications of Control

Timing-Based Classifications

Timing-based classifications of control in management categorize systems according to the timing of interventions relative to the operational process, distinguishing between proactive measures that anticipate issues and reactive ones that address deviations after they arise. These classifications—feedforward, concurrent, and feedback—enable managers to select appropriate strategies based on the need for prevention, real-time adjustment, or post-event correction. Feedforward control, also known as anticipatory or preventive control, occurs before a process begins and focuses on identifying and mitigating potential problems through foresight and . This approach relies on predicting inputs and environmental factors to adjust systems proactively, such as conducting pre-hiring screenings to assess candidates' and skills, thereby preventing issues like employee or poor performance from emerging. Another example is supply chain , where demand predictions inform adjustments to avoid stockouts or overstocking. Concurrent control takes place during the execution of activities, allowing for immediate monitoring and adjustments to ensure alignment with standards in real time. In , for instance, supervisors perform ongoing quality checks on assembly lines, halting production to correct defects as they occur, which minimizes and maintains output consistency. This type of control integrates direct and intervention to address deviations as the process unfolds. Feedback control, often referred to as closed-loop control in reference to cybernetic principles, evaluates outcomes after the process completes and uses the results to inform corrections in subsequent cycles. A common application is annual reviews, where employee outputs are assessed post-period to identify gaps and adjust goals or for the next year, as seen in post-project audits that analyze results to refine future initiatives. This method provides reliable data for long-term improvements but operates reactively. Each classification offers distinct advantages and disadvantages shaped by its timing. Feedforward control excels at reducing errors and costs by preventing issues, fostering a proactive , but it demands accurate predictions and can be resource-intensive if forecasts prove unreliable. Concurrent control enables swift corrections to sustain and during operations, though it requires constant oversight that may increase workload and disrupt flow. Feedback control is straightforward and data-driven, ensuring corrections are based on verifiable results, yet it is inherently reactive, potentially allowing problems to persist until after significant damage occurs.

Scope-Based Classifications

Scope-based classifications of management control categorize systems according to the hierarchical level of organizational activities they address, ranging from high-level strategic oversight to granular operational execution. This approach, pioneered by Robert N. Anthony in his seminal framework, distinguishes between and control, management (or tactical) control, and operational control, enabling organizations to align monitoring mechanisms with their strategic, departmental, and task-specific needs. Strategic control focuses on ensuring that long-term organizational goals remain aligned with external environmental changes and internal capabilities. It involves periodic assessments to evaluate the overall direction and adaptability of the organization, such as through adjustments informed by , which identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to refine strategic positioning. For instance, executives might use to pivot business models in response to market disruptions, maintaining environmental fit over extended horizons. Tactical control, often termed management control in Anthony's model, targets intermediate-level efficiency within departments or functions to implement strategic objectives. It emphasizes and performance monitoring at the divisional level, such as tracking budget variances to ensure departmental activities support broader goals without exceeding financial limits. This level bridges strategy and operations by focusing on coordination and corrective actions for mid-term plans. Operational control addresses the day-to-day execution of tasks to achieve tactical targets, supervising routine activities like oversight to maintain quality and efficiency standards. At this level, control systems monitor immediate outputs, such as levels or adherence, to minimize deviations in real-time performance. These levels interrelate hierarchically, with establishing overarching parameters that guide tactical and operational mechanisms; for example, the framework integrates them by cascading strategic objectives into tactical measures (like departmental KPIs) and operational metrics (such as daily production targets), fostering alignment across the organization. Since the , there has been a notable toward integrated control systems in matrix organizations, where cross-functional structures demand unified monitoring to handle complexity; this shift, driven by implementations, emphasizes holistic IMS that blend strategic, tactical, and operational elements for enhanced adaptability in multinational settings.

Human Versus Machine Control

Human control in management relies on individual judgment, intuition, and interpersonal skills to monitor, evaluate, and adjust organizational activities, such as through managerial coaching where supervisors provide personalized feedback to align employee performance with goals. This approach excels in flexibility, allowing managers to adapt to nuanced, context-specific situations that require ethical considerations or , as human enables rapid holistic associations in complex, nonroutine decisions. However, it is prone to weaknesses like cognitive biases, including and overconfidence, which can distort performance assessments and lead to inconsistent or suboptimal outcomes. In contrast, machine control employs algorithms, , and software to automate monitoring and correction processes, exemplified by (RPA) in , where bots handle repetitive tasks like and to ensure compliance and accuracy. Automated systems offer strengths in speed and precision, processing vast datasets without fatigue to minimize errors in rule-based operations, thereby enhancing efficiency in high-volume environments. Yet, they lack adaptability to unforeseen changes or ambiguous scenarios, potentially failing in dynamic contexts where rigid programming cannot account for variability. Hybrid models integrate and machine control, such as AI-assisted tools that provide for performance forecasting while humans oversee value-based judgments, a trend accelerating in 2025 with platforms enabling real-time between managers and AI agents. This leverages machine efficiency for data-heavy tasks and strengths for complex oversight, improving overall control outcomes in organizations. Selection criteria favor control for intricate, value-laden tasks requiring or , while machines suit repetitive, quantifiable processes; for instance, Tesla's operations initially over-relied on for assembly, leading to production delays, but shifted to hybrid approaches incorporating oversight for flexibility in handling variances.

Implementation Practices

Setting Performance Standards

Setting performance standards is the foundational step in management control systems, where benchmarks are established to define expected outcomes and guide organizational activities. These standards serve as reference points for evaluating whether actual aligns with strategic objectives, enabling managers to detect deviations early and implement corrective actions. In practice, standards must be carefully designed to reflect organizational goals while considering operational realities, ensuring they motivate rather than demotivate employees. Performance standards are broadly categorized into quantitative and qualitative types. Quantitative standards involve numerical metrics that allow for precise measurement and comparison, such as financial ratios. For instance, (ROI) is a common quantitative standard calculated as: ROI=Current Value of Investment−Cost of InvestmentCost of Investment×100\text{ROI} = \frac{\text{Current Value of Investment} - \text{Cost of Investment}}{\text{Cost of Investment}} \times 100 This formula assesses the efficiency of an investment by comparing its gain relative to its cost, expressed as a ; for example, in , it might evaluate profitability by subtracting initial costs from final value and dividing by the initial outlay. Qualitative standards, in contrast, focus on non-numerical aspects like behaviors or perceptions, such as levels measured through surveys assessing or . These provide insights into subjective elements that numbers alone cannot capture, such as stakeholder feedback on product . Methods for establishing these standards include historical data analysis, benchmarking against competitors, and engineering standards. Historical data analysis involves reviewing past performance records to set realistic targets; for example, a company might use previous sales figures to project future quotas, adjusting for trends like seasonal variations. Benchmarking compares internal processes to industry leaders or peers, identifying gaps and best practices—such as adopting a competitor's supply chain efficiency metrics to raise operational targets. Engineering standards, particularly in operations, define precise time allowances for tasks; time standards, for instance, specify the duration a skilled worker needs to complete a process under normal conditions, derived from time-motion studies to optimize productivity. Setting standards presents challenges, particularly in balancing ambition with achievability to avoid unrealistic expectations that could lead to employee disengagement. One widely adopted framework to address this is the SMART criteria, which ensures standards are Specific (clearly defined objectives), Measurable (quantifiable progress indicators), Achievable (realistic given resources), Relevant (aligned with broader goals), and Time-bound (with defined deadlines). For example, a vague goal like "improve sales" becomes SMART as "increase quarterly sales by 10% in the next six months through targeted marketing campaigns." This approach mitigates risks like overambition by grounding standards in feasible parameters. A key example in ownership and control is the budget variance formula, which quantifies deviations from standards to inform managerial decisions. The formula is: Variance=Actual Amount−Standard (Budgeted) Amount\text{Variance} = \text{Actual Amount} - \text{Standard (Budgeted) Amount} Derivation begins with the need to isolate differences in financial performance: start by establishing the standard (budgeted figure) based on planned costs or revenues; then, after the period, record the actual results; subtract the standard from the actual to yield the variance. A positive result indicates an unfavorable variance (e.g., actual costs exceeding budget), signaling potential inefficiencies, while a negative indicates favorable (e.g., savings). This simple subtraction derives from basic accounting principles to highlight discrepancies, allowing managers to investigate causes like material price changes or labor inefficiencies. Flexible budgets refine this by adjusting standards for volume changes, reducing artificial variances. Standards require periodic review to remain relevant, especially in dynamic industries like where market conditions evolve rapidly. In tech firms adopting agile methodologies, reviews occur iteratively—often at sprint ends or quarterly—to update metrics like (story points completed per ) or defect rates, ensuring benchmarks adapt to innovations such as AI integration or shifting user demands. This ongoing adjustment prevents obsolescence and maintains alignment with strategic agility.

Measuring and Comparing Performance

Measuring performance in management control involves systematically collecting on organizational activities and evaluating it against established standards to identify discrepancies. This process ensures that managers can assess whether operations align with strategic objectives, using a variety of tools to gather quantitative and qualitative information. is foundational to effective control, as it provides the empirical basis for detecting variances that may require attention. Common measurement tools include surveys for employee and customer feedback, financial audits to verify accounting accuracy, and performance software such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems that track key performance indicators (KPIs) like revenue growth or inventory turnover. Surveys offer insights into non-financial aspects, such as satisfaction levels, while financial audits ensure compliance and detect irregularities in fiscal reporting. ERP systems, widely adopted in large organizations, automate real-time KPI monitoring, integrating data from multiple departments to provide a holistic view of performance. Once is collected, comparison methods enable managers to benchmark actual results against standards. Ratio analysis evaluates financial health through metrics like liquidity ratios (e.g., ) or profitability ratios (e.g., ), allowing cross-period or cross-firm comparisons. Trend charting visualizes performance over time, highlighting patterns such as increasing costs or declining efficiency. (SPC) charts, a key tool in , plot points against control limits set at ±3 standard deviations () from the mean, signaling when processes deviate from expected variability. Deviations identified through these comparisons are classified as favorable or unfavorable variances, depending on whether they positively or negatively impact goals. For instance, in , a favorable variance occurs when actual exceeds budgeted amounts, while an unfavorable one arises from shortfalls. A basic calculation for variance is: Sales Quantity Variance = (Actual - Budgeted ) × Standard Price, which isolates the effect of volume differences at a standard price. This approach helps pinpoint specific drivers of under- or over-. Interpreting these deviations requires establishing thresholds for managerial action, such as reviewing processes when variances exceed 10% of standards, to balance responsiveness with avoiding overreaction to minor fluctuations. This quantitative assessment is often supplemented by qualitative insights, like contextual factors from team feedback, to ensure a nuanced understanding of underlying causes. Standards serve as the baseline for these comparisons, providing measurable targets derived from prior . As of 2025, modern tools leveraging (AI) enhance in large datasets, enabling proactive identification of irregularities in performance metrics across environments. AI algorithms analyze vast volumes of operational data to flag outliers that traditional methods might miss, improving the speed and accuracy of control processes in complex organizations.

Challenges and Limitations

Common Problems in Control

One common operational issue in management control systems is over-control, where excessive monitoring and impose undue pressure on employees, leading to demotivation, reduced , and increased administrative costs. For instance, practices like "management by walking around" (MBWA), intended to foster informal oversight, can backfire by creating perceptions of if managers fail to follow through on staff feedback or appear overly intrusive, resulting in lower and . Coercive control mechanisms, such as rigid behavioral monitoring, further exacerbate this by eroding organizational trust and prompting disengagement, as employees feel their capabilities are undervalued. Inaccurate data represents another frequent challenge, stemming from errors in measurement tools, human input, or outdated sensors, which can trigger misguided corrective actions and distort performance evaluations. In performance management systems, flawed metrics often arise from incomplete or imprecise data collection, leading to unreliable feedback loops that misallocate resources or penalize teams unjustly. For example, inconsistencies in data formatting or entry errors in control dashboards can amplify biases, causing managers to overreact to false anomalies rather than addressing real issues. Employee resistance to control systems often emerges as a cultural pushback, where workers view monitoring as a threat to their or , fostering deliberate non-compliance or workplace . This resistance is particularly pronounced when control mechanisms are perceived as punitive, leading to reduced and higher turnover rates; participative approaches, involving employee input in system design, have been shown to mitigate such reactions by building buy-in. In post-acquisition scenarios, forcing strict controls without addressing can intensify this issue, transforming initial into active opposition. Resource constraints pose significant barriers to effective control implementation, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), where limited budgets restrict access to advanced tools like integrated systems for real-time monitoring. SMEs often rely on informal controls due to financial and human shortages, which can result in inconsistent application and vulnerability to errors, as seen in studies of Singaporean small businesses struggling with IS adoption. Organizational inertia in these firms further compounds the problem, delaying the shift to formal systems and exposing operations to inefficiencies. External disruptions, such as those from the , frequently undermine control systems by interrupting supply chains and introducing unpredictable variables that standard metrics fail to capture. The 2020-2021 global health crisis led to widespread shortages and production halts, forcing companies to revise control protocols amid volatile demand, with sectors reliant on Chinese imports experiencing significant declines in output. These events highlighted the need for adaptive controls, as rigid systems proved inadequate against sudden shocks like port closures and labor shortages.

Inherent Limitations

Control systems in management are inherently limited by the presence of uncertainty and unpredictability in organizational environments. These systems rely on historical data, models, and assumptions to guide , but they cannot fully anticipate rare, high-impact events known as black swans, such as sudden geopolitical disruptions or unforeseen market shifts. For instance, the exemplified how traditional risk controls failed to account for cascading failures in interconnected financial systems, leading to widespread economic damage despite established monitoring mechanisms. A fundamental constraint arises from cost-benefit trade-offs, where achieving perfect control becomes uneconomical due to the escalating complexity required. According to Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety, formulated by cybernetician , a control system's capacity for effective must match the variety—or potential disturbances—in its environment; otherwise, instability ensues. In management contexts, this implies that overly simplistic controls cannot handle dynamic business landscapes without incurring prohibitive costs for expanded monitoring, response mechanisms, or organizational , often resulting in suboptimal equilibrium where some risks remain unmanaged. Rigid control structures also impose behavioral limitations by constraining human elements essential for organizational vitality. Excessive oversight can stifle employee and , as hierarchical controls discourage risk-taking and autonomous problem-solving, fostering a culture of compliance over experimentation. Research indicates that such controls negatively affect innovative outcomes by limiting and intrinsic motivation, with studies showing reduced idea generation in tightly regulated teams compared to those with flexible guidelines. Measurement gaps further undermine control efficacy, particularly for intangible aspects like , which resides in individuals' experiences and intuitions rather than formal records. Unlike explicit data, tacit knowledge resists quantification through standard metrics, creating blind spots in performance evaluation and strategic planning; efforts to capture it often rely on indirect proxies, such as employee interviews or , which are subjective and incomplete. This limitation persists across industries, where unmeasured tacit elements contribute to knowledge silos and hinder . Ethical concerns amplify these inherent flaws, especially in surveillance-based controls that monitor employee activities to enforce compliance. Such practices can lead to privacy invasions, eroding trust and morale while raising legal risks under data protection frameworks. Under the EU's (GDPR), workplace must adhere to principles of lawfulness, transparency, proportionality, and data minimization, with non-compliance fines reaching up to 4% of global annual turnover. As of 2025, regulatory scrutiny on automated monitoring has increased through trends and guidance, compelling organizations to scale back invasive tools to avoid ethical and reputational harm.

References

  1. https://www.aiu.edu/blog/essentials-of-controlling-in-management-a-key-to-organizational-success/
  2. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/an-overview-of-management-control-theory-11272.html
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/economics-econometrics-and-finance/management-control
  4. https://publications.aaahq.org/accounting-horizons/article/25/3/593/1963/Robert-N-Anthony-A-Pioneering-Thinker-in
  5. https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/business-and-management/resources/the-four-functions-of-management/
  6. https://www.etymonline.com/word/control
  7. http://faculty.humanities.uci.edu/bjbecker/SpinningWeb/week8b.html
  8. https://books.google.com/books/about/General_and_Industrial_Management.html?id=WFp5DQAAQBAJ
  9. https://archive.org/download/in.ernet.dli.2015.13518/2015.13518.General-And-Industrial-Management.pdf
  10. https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/4581/Cybernetics-or-Control-and-Communication-in-the
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5723162/
  12. https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/4192/Out-of-the-Crisis
  13. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/erp/erp-history.shtml
  14. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/13/3/208
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382241441_Integrating_AI_for_Agile_Project_Management_Innovations_Challenges_and_Benefits
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26473993_CONTROL_OF_PROJECTS_-_A_CYBERNETIC_CONTROL
  17. https://themba.institute/management-control-systems/cybernetic-paradigm-or-the-feedback-factor/
  18. http://courses.washington.edu/inde495/lecg.htm
  19. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/principles-of-management/control-the-linking-function/effective-organizational-control-systems
  20. https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/management/9-characteristics-of-an-effective-control-systems-explained/3511
  21. https://www.abacademies.org/articles/an-overview-of-management-control-theory.pdf
  22. https://pressbooks.cuny.edu/principlesofmanagement/chapter/1-5-planning-organizing-leading-and-controlling-2/
  23. https://www.brainkart.com/article/Process-of-controlling_7538/
  24. https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/the-control-cycle.html
  25. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/agile-project-management-scrum-6269
  26. https://mbahumanresource.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/mcs-lpu-material.pdf
  27. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-principlesofmanagement/chapter/reading-barriers-to-effective-communication/
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40245436
  29. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/5da20dd4-df51-47cc-9843-3182cffdd63b/9781003215035_10.4324-4.pdf
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258159136_Management_Control_Systems_A_Review
  31. https://rep-dspace.uminho.pt/bitstreams/16cad7e2-572c-460f-97a3-1d50889c2df1/download
  32. https://www.designsociety.org/download-publication/25592/the_barriers_to_improving_information_management_in_engineering_organizations_a_study_of_small_to_medium-sized_enterprises
  33. https://study.com/academy/lesson/closed-loop-management-system-definition-theory-quiz.html
  34. https://planeus-solutions.com/blog/en/closed-loop-vs-open-loop-production-control-system/
  35. https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1702986.pdf
  36. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA112350.pdf
  37. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-principlesofmanagement/chapter/the-control-process/
  38. https://pressbooks.cuny.edu/principlesofmanagement/chapter/15-4-types-and-levels-of-control/
  39. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/principles-of-management/control-the-linking-function/types-of-organizational-controls
  40. https://study.com/academy/lesson/organizational-controls-feedforward-concurrent-feedback.html
  41. https://slm.mba/mmpc-001/types-of-control-in-management-feedforward-concurrent-feedback/
  42. https://maaw.info/ArticleSummaries/ArtSumAnthony64.htm
  43. https://www.acowtancy.com/textbook/acca-bt/business-organisation-structure/anthony-hierarchy/notes
  44. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/jamaa%25D8%25A9-ktr/strategic-management/anthonys-framework-for-managerial-activities/10086132
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361368203000680
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296324002443
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254412101_Exploring_Intuition_and_its_Role_in_Managerial_Decision_Making
  48. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440251355330
  49. https://www.gartner.com.au/en/finance/insights/robotics-in-finance
  50. https://www.schellman.com/blog/soc-examinations/automated-or-manual-soc-controls
  51. https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/strategy/articles/teslas-problem-overestimating-automation-underestimating-humans/
  52. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/how-to-prepare-managers-to-lead-hybrid-human-ai-teams
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107158192500179X
  54. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/13/elon-musk-admits-humans-are-sometimes-superior-to-robots.html
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228382027_Setting_the_Standard_in_Performance_Measurement_Systems
  56. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp
  57. https://www.finance.gov.au/government/managing-commonwealth-resources/developing-performance-measures-rmg--131/qualitative-quantitative-performance-measures
  58. https://asana.com/resources/benchmarking
  59. https://www.easymetrics.com/understanding-engineered-labor-standards/
  60. https://hr.berkeley.edu/hr-network/central-guide-managing-hr/managing-hr/managing-successfully/performance-management/planning/expectations
  61. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/budget-variance.asp
  62. https://www.atlassian.com/agile/project-management/metrics
  63. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/business-performance-measurement
  64. https://production.cbts.edu/Textbook/10p0h5/418066/Control_As_Management_Function.pdf
  65. https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=acctg-finance-facpubs
  66. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/financial-performance-measures
  67. https://hbr.org/1992/01/the-balanced-scorecard-measures-that-drive-performance-2
  68. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section3/pmc31.htm
  69. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/revenue-variance-analysis/
  70. https://www.esade.edu/beyond/en/how-management-control-is-applied-in-a-company/
  71. https://pg-p.ctme.caltech.edu/blog/data-analytics/impact-of-ai-in-data-analytics
  72. https://www.cio.gov/ai-in-action/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5834078/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10591122/
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373708139_Shortcomings_of_Current_Performance_Measurement_and_Management_Systems_A_Literature_Review
  76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01559982.2022.2140500
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1044500524000118
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23794307_Resource_Constraints_and_Information_Systems_Implementation_in_Singaporean_Small_Businesses
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2199853125001003
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292124000035
  81. https://hbr.org/2020/09/global-supply-chains-in-a-post-pandemic-world
  82. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/10/23/risk-management-and-black-swan-events/
  83. https://archive.org/details/introductiontocy00ashb
  84. https://intelligente-organisationen.de/ashbys-law-of-requisite-variety
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263237320301304
  86. https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminlaker/2024/08/15/why-rigid-hierarchies-might-be-killing-your-teams-creativity/
  87. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0170840600213001
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11300163/
  89. https://gdprlocal.com/gdpr-employee-monitoring/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.