Teams work under various types of authority. James Barker offers a theory explaining control that exists in one aspect of the authority spectrum—specifically, self-managed teams.
Self-managed teams consist of a small number of members (somewhere around 10 to 15) that complete a specific and clearly defined job function, such as a service or production. For example, a team may process insurance claims or build a specific product. Rather than having a manager or leader directing the team, the team organizes and manages itself. Team members figure out their own rules for working (within organizational constraints) and develop their own standards for evaluating the work.
These types of teams differ, then, from the traditional approach to management and transform the traditional, hierarchical organization into a flat configuration that emphasizes democratic principles and a participatory approach. In addition to being consistent with democracy, the benefits of self-managed teams include cost savings by eliminating the need for lower-level managers; freeing the team from bureaucracy, which allows the team to be creative and innovative in its approach to tasks; and fostering high commitment from workers.
However, there are also costs of self-managed teams because workers are asked to give more of themselves—more of their time and energy. Team members also need to develop skills in collaboration and self-management.
Barker's concertive control theory focuses on how self-managed teams control the behavior of team members. To understand concertive control, it is important to understand three other types of control. Barker uses a model of three broad strategies of control of organizational member behavior: (1) simple, (2) technological, and (3) bureaucratic.
Simple control is the direct and personal control offered by an authority figure. Simple control is implemented by the company's owner or hired bosses (such as those found in small businesses). With simple control, workers do what the boss asks them to do. There is a danger with simple control in that the worker is subject to the whims of the owner, and the owner may abuse the position or implement biased decisions.
Technological control developed because of technological advances and also because of worker dissatisfaction with simple control. Originally, technological control was based on assembly lines found in manufacturing in the early twentieth century. The assembly line required workers to perform specific actions, and thus it controlled behavior. Today, we have information and communication technology that can be used to monitor worker behavior and thus "ensure" that people do their work. Technological control has disadvantages in that workers can become disenfranchised and figure out ways to sabotage the work.
Bureaucratic control was developed to combat limitations in the prior two approaches by developing a hierarchy and a set of rational rules and consequences (rewards and punishments) to control behavior. It is designed to be a fair system that rewards and punishes people in a transparent manner that emphasizes organizational goal achievement. Bureaucratic control is not without its challenges, and many workers often complain of "bureaucratic red tape." The bureaucracy is applied even when no one knows exactly its purpose. Most of us can think about a workplace that requires us to fill out numerous forms even though no one can explain exactly why they are important. The rules also are used as the justification for the organization rather than the importance of people, social relationships, or even organizational goals.
Self-managed teams were developed to help eliminate some of the problems with bureaucracy; these teams use what Philip Tompkins and George Cheney call concertive control to achieve their ends. Concertive control results from worker consensus to develop normative rules that guide behavior based on values established by the workers themselves. In other words, team members identify common perspectives and rules that they feel are important and then use these rules to monitor their behavior. The control is with the workers themselves and not with managers. Team members negotiate the rules for behavior by determining what is valued and important for achieving the tasks assigned to them.
Barker bases his theory on the idea of generative discipline, which is grounded in two assumptions. The first assumption is that organizational culture includes a set of discourses that are used to make work sensible and rational. That is, the organization provides a value base for what is important and how work should be done. The second assumption is based on concertive control, which means these value bases generate everyday rules and practices that discipline or guide the work in the organization. This might mean that we show up on time, do not shirk our work, and do whatever it takes to meet the team goal.
Barker's research illustrates that generative discipline is developed in three phases. In the first phase, the team develops a value consensus and consolidates its rules. The team members identify highly with the team—even more highly with the team than with the organization itself. In the second phase, the team experiences an emergence of normative rules. In this phase, there is a turn from meeting team values to obeying rules. People who follow the rules have a feeling of belonging, while those who do not experience guilt and peer pressure. Normative rules provide ways to self-monitor and to discipline (including punish) each other. In the third phase, the team stabilizes and formalizes the rules. Penalties are identified for these rules as well.
The control system resembles a bureaucratic one, and employees report feeling greater stress with the new system than with the old one. In fact, they report feeling under greater scrutiny in the self-managed team than in a traditional organization. Barker describes this as a price of identification; team members are so committed to their work and their goals that they develop strong rules for controlling each other's behavior to ensure that the team goals are met. The team members feel ownership and thus want to control each other. This is a potential dilemma of self-managed teams: the team members get to create a work structure and climate that they want, and yet their commitment encourages them to over-control.
Barker suggests that concertive control is inevitable, and the key is for teams to include a review of their control practices as part of their ongoing work. Rather than let the rules be the basis for the work, teams need to ensure that the rules continue to allow the team to function effectively and still be supportive of team members.
A number of studies have examined concertive control in self-managed teams in a variety of contexts. Beverly Hawkins explores how concertive control in two self-managed teams in an international recruitment agency is gendered—how gender is used as a resource for concertive control processes. She identifies three such resources.
First, team members make assumptions about men's and women's relative skills and capabilities. In one of the teams tasked with recruiting possible employees to work in transportation (e.g., truck drivers), both male and female workers framed male team members as having more knowledge about the section and therefore more control of the work. This framing occurs even when male workers do not have good attention to detail and commit certain rule violations more frequently than women.
Second, "tough" masculinity impacts the team processes. Team members recognize sexism and swearing as a part of the transportation industry; therefore, team members have to adapt to fit the culture. Overall, then, the concertive control processes emphasize masculinity and the need to be tough—whether male or female.
Third, teams regulate performance of heterosexuality during interactions with customers. The team members suggest the importance of bantering with clients and each other about heterosexual sex, sexualizing women, and engaging in other sexist behaviors. Some women even report that looking good and using sexual banter is an advantage to sales when coupled with knowledge about the industry.
Thus, the team values encourage behavior that is sexualized, tough, and privileges male perspectives. This study illustrates some unique ways that concertive control processes are developed and reinforced through gendered notions of work.