Organizational control rationales in knowledge‐intensive organizations: An integrative review of emerging trends

• Date: 01 February 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1695
• Author: Carlos Martin‐Rios
• Published date: 01 February 2018

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Organizational control rationales in knowledge‐intensive

organizations: An integrative review of emerging trends

Carlos Martin‐Rios

Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne, HES‐SO

University of Applied Sciences Western

Switzerland, Lausanne, Switzerland

Correspondence

Carlos Martin‐Rios, Ecole hôtelière de

Lausanne, HES‐SO University of Applied

Sciences Western Switzerland Le Chalet‐à‐

Gobet Route de Cojonnex 18 CH‐1000,

Lausanne 25, Switzerland.

Email: carlos.martin‐rios@ehl.ch

This theoretical paper uses a complete review of organizational control configuration (OCC) liter-

ature to illustrate the innovation, complexity and dynamics of control in knowledge‐intensive

organizations (KIOs). On the basis of interdisciplinary analysis of the extant literature on OCC,

the paper offers a comprehensive look at the “control pathway”taken by the various KIOs. By

means of this integrative review of existing theory and research, the paper argues for greater

attention to KIOs' control rationales in OCC theory and research. In doing so, it offers a compre-

hensive conceptual framework for the study of control in KIOs and suggests a number of propo-

sitions for future research.

1|INTRODUCTION

The notion of an organizational control configuration (OCC)—defined

as a set of systems, rules, practices, values, and other activities used

to convey how individuals at every level within an organization must

behave to achieve the organization's objectives and perform at a satis-

factory level (Malmi & Brown, 2008) in knowledge‐intensive organiza-

tions (KIOs)—has attracted increased scholarly attention in recent

years (Cardinal, Sitkin, & Long, 2004; Foss, 2007; Martin‐Rios, 2016a;

McCarthy & Gordon, 2011; Robertson & Swan, 2003; Turner &

Makhija, 2006). OCC is of utmost relevance for public affairs and gov-

ernance. This special issue is a reflection of that expanded interest and

concern. Public affairs is a knowledge‐intensive activity that critically

depends on knowledge and does not lend itself to being managed by

traditional measures. For example, Meznar and Nigh (1995) define it

as “the organizational function responsible for maintaining external

legitimacy by managing the interface between an organization and its

socio‐political environment”(p. 975). Moreover, van Schendelen

(2012) conceptualizes public affairs management as the effort to

bridge and promote adaptation between the internal organization

and the outside public policy. Several authors have identified the foun-

dations of control in KIOs as being inherently distinct from those in tra-

ditional hierarchical settings (Davila, Foster, & Li, 2009). Scholars have

made important theoretical contributions in this regard by specifying

the impact that such differences should have on OCC. Yet despite their

significance, organizational‐level understanding of OCC in KIOs,

including public affairs, remains largely fragmented and incomplete.

One difficulty is associated with the definition of KIOs itself. The

ambiguity of the term KIO stems to a large degree from the ambiguity

of the term knowledge‐intensive. In his seminal conceptual framework,

Blackler (1995) distinguished between four types of knowledge work

and organizations depending on their focus on individual versus collec-

tive endeavor and novel versus familiar problems. Yet studies regard-

ing control in KIOs either draw on the more general definitions of

the organization (e.g., postbureaucratic and collaborative) in order to

help them understand the challenges they face (Foss, 2007; Heckscher

& Adler, 2006) or they focus on a particular type of organization, for

example, project‐based organizations, professional service firms, or

high‐technology firms (Baron et al., 2001; Hodgson, 2004; Robertson

& Swan, 2003). None of the studies explicitly addresses how OCC vary

depending on the type of organizational and work process contexts.

In terms of control norms and mechanisms in different KIOs, we

lack a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic, multidimensional

nature of OCC. These systems are a complex construct that may

include multiple and simultaneous rationales of control (Ouchi, 1979).

Control rationales include formal controls such as administrative con-

trol practices (e.g., individual performance management), along with

more socially based controls such as norms and values that influence

individual behavior. One missing aspect in the KIOs literature is the

relationship between these differing formal and informal control ratio-

nales (Martin‐Rios, 2015). This is critical for public affairs (McGrath,

Moss, & Harris, 2010), public policy and governance (Tan, 2014), and

new public management (Martin‐Rios, 2016b) because when the vari-

ous OCC or rationales in an organization are not balanced and inte-

grated, they can be a source of dissatisfaction, conflict, and stress for

their members and related negative economic consequences for the

organization (Cardinal et al., 2004).

Several voices have called attention to the contradictory use of

different OCC in KIOs (Hodgson, 2004; Kärreman, Sveningsson, &

Alvesson, 2002; Maravelias, 2003), suggesting a fruitful area of

DOI: 10.1002/pa.1695

J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1695.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1695

Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of11