Belief and Relational Dynamics in Organizations: Control vs Autonomy

There is extensive research on the dynamic of Control vs Autonomy spanning across multiple disciplines. Just like extrinsic and intrinsic characteristics, control and autonomy exist on a corresponding continuum whereby strong control correlates with the extrinsic and weak or no power and control correlates with the intrinsic.?This article will cover the complicated and extensive elements of control and its relationship to power and its counterpart, autonomy. While my intention is to talk about each part separately, the discussion will have some overlap. Keep in mind that the focus is on the business context, but you will see its application in any social context. Also, this is a centerpiece of the belief and relational structure typologies, and so you will see direct connections to those as well.

Before we delve into the individual elements of this dynamic, Let's look at the concept of a power and control factor. The connection between power and control is found in Tannenbaum (1962) who defined control as “any process in which a person or group of persons or organization of persons determines, i.e., intentionally affects, what another person or group or organization will do” (p. 239).?He connects control to influence (see also Northhouse, 2016), authority, and power (see also Dahl, 1962).? Power is ascribed to an individual who is in a position to exercise control, and authority refers to the right to exercise control (Tannenbaum, 1962).?In other words, power in organizations is linked to role, structures, and the organization’s processes which gives an individual the power to exercise control. Control can be dispersed (weak) whereby each in the group have some measure of control in the organization, or the control can be total (highly restrictive), centralized in one person, group, or department. Therefore, autonomy, the extent to which an individual determines their behavior, is inverse to behavior being controlled.?In other words, “The more an individual’s behavior is determined by others (i.e., is controlled), the less an individual is free to determine [their] own course of action” (Tannenbaum, 1962, p. 239).?

Together, these form the framework of a power and control factor. So, the definition for a power and control factor is, "A perceived or actual individual, group, organizational, social, cultural, political, structural, legal, environmental, or relationally applied element that gives one the ability to influence the behavior, thinking, beliefs, perception, and feelings of others towards an intentional direction, and having the ability to sustain such direction so long as the influence is present." Using this framework, let's delve into the elements of this dynamic.

Control

Control has two implications: pragmatic and symbolic (Tannenbaum, 1962).? Pragmatic control "implies something about what an individual must or must not do, the restriction to which [one] is subject, and the area of choice or freedom which [one] has…”, and has implications that “are of vital importance to the controlled individual as well as to the individual exercising power” (p. 240), and to the health and wellbeing of the organization.? Symbolic control has a psychological or significance meaning involved, implying that the one controlling is superior, dominant, the guide, the helper, the criticizer, and the one who can hand out punishments and rewards; also implied is the one being controlled is the inferior, submissive, subordinate, lost, and helpless child who needs to be taught what to do and needs to be disciplined. Such “parent/child,” dependent, and authoritarian relationship of controller and controlled takes on an emotional meaning.

Expanding on Tannenbaum, control requires two elements: One is power (Dahl, 1962, French & Raven, 1959) to have the ability to direct or influence people’s beliefs, behavior, and thinking, as long as a relevant influence is present or until the beliefs, behavior, and thinking reaches a level of salience that commitment is achieved.?The second is dependence (McGregor, 2006) which provides the opportunity to control.?If one is dependent upon someone or something for a particular need, then there is the ability to influence behavior, beliefs, and relational aspects of one’s life-even if it is mutually beneficial.

Perls (1969, 1992) views control as a very powerful, yet simple concept.? He divided control into two parts: control that comes from the outside and control that is “built-in” that may drive one to self-regulate (see Fishbein and Azjen’s, 1975 work in Theory of Planned Behavior and Bandura’s, 1982 work in self-efficacy).? Both of these parts reflect the basic understanding of intrinsic (internal control) and extrinsic (external control) characteristics in the belief and relational continuum of control vs autonomy. Control is the tug-of-war between the self and the external environment (external struggle) or self and the various community of selves that make up one’s world (internal struggle).? Mutual autonomy would be achieving a balance whereby none really have control over the other but develops and lives within a common “world.”? In essence, an interconnected relationship is developed within the self and between the self and the environment that provides necessities for living, growth, and development.?To Perls, self-regulation is allowing the organism to take over without interfering and relying on the wisdom of the organism.? The contrast is “self-manipulation, environmental control, and so on, that interferes with this subtle organismic self-control” (Perls, 1969, 1992, p. 37).

In a business organization, control has been a major topic of research since Weber (Barker, 2006). From his work, several researchers have explored the element of control in relationship to bureaucracy in organizations. ?Mintzberg (1979) made control a central and integrated part of the organization.?Such controls are used to assess performance and output standards as well as behavior.?Edwards, as cited by Barker (1993) identified three strategies that represent extrinsic or external control on workers.?One is simple control which is the “direct, authoritarian, and personal control of work and workers by the company’s owners or hiring bosses, which was best seen in nineteenth-century factories and in small family-owned companies today” (p. 409).? The second is technological control which is accomplished through the physical or structural aspects of the organization.?An example given is the assembly line.?However, the control can also be found in the departmentalization and compartmentalization of work zones or responsibilities.?And, third, is the bureaucratic control which is established through hierarchy, unspoken and spoken legal, systemic, and rational rules, and the various social, economic, and self-informing negative reward and punishment systems that serve to enforce compliance.

These strategies of control are similar to Etioni (1961) who adds a utilitarian form of control which adds economic power to elicit compliance with the organization’s rules and regulations and normative control which seeks to control “the underlying experiences, thoughts, and feelings that guide their actions” (Kunda, 2006, p. 11).? Managers appeal, exhort, and act in ways that drive internal commitment, strong identification with the company goals, and “intrinsic” satisfaction at work.?Under normative control, are behavioral, economic, and experiential exchanges whereby symbolic rewards are exchanged for a moral orientation toward the organization.?Kunda (2006) says that in this exchange? “a member role is fashioned and imposed that includes not only behavior rules but articulated guidelines for the experience.?In short, under normative control it is the employee’s self-that ineffable source of subjective experience-that is claimed in the name of corporate interest” (p. 11). Thus, normative control is an attempt to embed control inside the members.

Ouchi (1981) highlights two different types of control- implicit and explicit (or formal).? Implicit control are rules that are illusory, subtle, embedded in the values, belief, and practices of the culture.?Thus, those that are embedded in the culture will think and act in ways that are similar and expected.?This aspect of control happens over a long period of time as workers “grow up within the organization.” It is best known as “control by culture.”? Explicit are more fixed, concrete, and measurable.? As Ouchi writes: “…every American company and government bureau devotes a large fraction of its time to setting specific measurable performance targets.?Every American business school teaches its students to take global, fuzzy corporate goals and boil them down to measurable performance targets. Management by objective (MBO), program planning, and evaluation, and cost benefit analysis are among the basic tools of control in modern American management” (p. 34). In implicit control, nothing has to be written down, no goals made, or objectives clarified.? Therefore, there can be freedom, flexibility, and trust for members in the organization because control assumes that the member’s decisions and actions will eventually coalesce with the leader’s expectations.?In explicit control, thinking, behavior, and beliefs are determined by boundaries set, goals and objectives, targets, and other expectations.

The different aspects of control are not simple.? For example, Kunda (2006) notes that normative control is integrated into the fabric of bureaucracy.?Weber saw bureaucracy and bureaucratic control as an irresistible force that would consume all other forms of control (Barker, 1993), forming an oppressive “iron cage.”? One reason such bureaucratic systems are built is in response to problems and failures in the relationship.?Each problem or failure, such as employees failing to come to work on time, result in the creation of rules and policies to control such behavior.?Metaphorically, it is much like a boat in the water that develops a leak which must be plugged or else the boat sinks.?A person plugs it with a finger, then a toe, and then anything else possible. Slowly, the person is incapacitated by the bureaucratic work of maintaining stability in the organization.?Work does not get done because all the energy is spent maintaining equilibrium (Wheatley, 2006).? While there has been a steady progression away from simple and utilitarian control towards normative control, a mixture of different types of control can be utilized in an organization. The reasons for this change relates to who is exerting power.?In an organization that is hierarchical whereby leaders are given power to exert control over members, multiple strategies (power and control factors) can be used to exert more rigid control.

Connected with this aspect of bureaucratic control, Rothbaum, et al (1982) highlights four attributions of secondary control.?The first is predictive control whereby one acts to protect one’s self against disappointment and unfulfilled expectations. For example, when a violation of norms or assumed rules occurs (an disequilibrium event), a new formal “law” is created to ensure that violation does not happen in the future, thus, regaining control. The same illustration of the man in the boat applies here as well, only the violations are behavioral norms rather than rules.?The second is illusory control whereby one relies on chance or “luck,” refraining resources and skills, and manipulating until one can sure to be “lucky” (Rowing the boat close enough to shore, and then being able to say that he was lucky he stayed close to shore).?The third type of attribution is vicarious control whereby one identifies with powerful others such as a powerful leader, a group, a deity which one can build a relationship and join in their power.?Using our illustration again, if the man can elicit someone to join him in the boat, he has 10 more fingers and toes to plug up and control the situation.?Just for good measure, he can also attribute not sinking to God who saved him by getting that “last hole.” The final type is interpretive control, in which one achieves acceptance by seeking to understand or gain meaning of an uncontrollable event (e.g., we are in this boat to plug up the holes in order to keep this company, society, etc from sinking). Such may even serve as a mission and value statement.

What if the agent of control is the members themselves (think peer pressure)? ?The act of control in the personal domain has parallels to the domain of the social.?Applying the above from Perls, control in an organization has internal control factors that drives the organization to self-regulate.? Such internal control is maintained by its members who exert power on other members to believe, act, and relate in certain ways according to norms (behavior and belief expectations) in order to maintain social and functional equilibrium and a common identity. Such control is called, “Concertive Control” built on Edward’s three control strategies (Barker, 1993).? Concertive control is characterized as decentralized, participative, and a more democratic system of control (see Barker for a historical analysis of concertive control).? In other words, the locus of control switches from the management to the workers themselves and this creates an environment for collective power and control through power relations.

Power

The concept of power has deep philosophical and research roots to such an extent that Dahl (1962) called it a “bottomless swamp.”? Power is often characterized as the ability or capacity to influence or overcome (Pfeffer, 1998) and, in the context of business, is commonly associated with authority inherent or given through role or through organization structure and processes.

Often power, control, influence, pressure, authority, et al are used interchangeably (Dahl, 1960), though, as was illustrated above, they are separated and treated differently.? That is because power is a relational and social concept, often synonymous with prestige, status, social eminence, superiority, and success (Tannenbaum, 1962), and control is synonymous with the stability and maintenance of the relationship.?Power and control is present in all aspects of social, organization, and cultural systems because they passively or actively influence how one experiences, defines, and organizes their world.?This influence cannot be helped as each person enters into the world and begins the process of experiencing, understanding, and learning to live in the new environment into which they were thrusted or chose to participate.? Thus begins the socialization of the person by forces that squeeze them from all sides, shaping the way they see, understand, and define reality, and shaping the image of one’s self, identity, role, and relationships. The systems of power and control are a subtle reality that are rarely examined and often hidden because, if acknowledged, one will realize that one has been conditioned and manipulated to be compliant, obedient, and dependent (Starhawk, 1987). ?An example is the nest theory mentioned in an earlier article.? One can see how children were born into a belief and relational structure, a structure of a mixture of behavior and belief restriction and control and behavior and belief compliance, that shaped them accordingly.?An example is power and control that is present in the parental role (superior or dominant) and child role (subordinate or submissive) which mirrors the leader/follower relationship.? ?

Power can take three directions of control: power over, power-from-within, or power-with (Starhawk, 1987).? Power over “allows an individual or group to make decisions that affect others and to enforce control” (Starhawk, 1987, p. 9).?Starhawk characterizes this type as a part of every institution, every relationship in the workplace, in schools, the courts, the doctor’s office, and is exhibited by dominating and controlling resources like money, food, medical care, information, and the relational elements such as approval and love.

In organizational systems, such “power over” systems are by design.?An example is hierarchical systems, with its structure of different leaders (executives, directors, managers, etc), were designed for the minority or the one to have power over and control of the majority (Mintzberg, 1979).? “Power over” is mostly present in non-egalitarian systems where there are specialized roles, “ownership” of resources, highly rigid operational structures, high prestige systems, and a rigid social hierarchy.?Positions of power and control are given to those who accumulate critical resources (material, symbolic, social capital) and are able to convert such resources into influence (Garfield, von Rueden, & Hagen, 2019).? Even matrix designed organizations consisting of teams whose task-force leaders jointly share power with functional managers (Mintzberg, 1979) are built on hierarchical structures.

Power-with is shared power with others in an egalitarian relationship. It exhibits power and control over others through group action which may create compliance. At its best, power-with allows more autonomy through being listened to and respected for one’s uniqueness.? As power-over is an organization held together by hierarchy, power-with has a horizontal or even a heterarchical structure, dependent on personal responsibility and the freedom to respond (Starhawk, 1987).? Such an organization has an egalitarian belief and relational structure (relational freedom and responsibility) whereby the culture maintains an ethos of sharing, a lack of status or social distinctions, and a lack of resource inequality. In such an organization, everyone has relative equal opportunities (Garfield, et al., 2019).

French and Raven (1959) focused on the linkage between the source of power and the target of influence to claim that one's potential influence is partly a function of the dependence of the target on the source of power (French & Raven, 1959; Raven, 2008; Emerson, 1962). French and Raven (1959) identified six different types or bases of power (Informational, Reward, Coercion, Legitimate, Expertise, and Referent) and clustered them into two categories, personal (e.g., referent, expert, connection) and position power (e.g., legitimate, reward, coercive, information).? These bases of power, when used, can socially influence change in the belief, attitude, or behavior of a person (Raven, 2008).? Such power can also sustain (control) the beliefs, attitude, and behavior of a person so long as the power factor is present.

Morgan (2006) provides fourteen sources of power that includes additional the use of organizational structure, rules, and regulations, the control of the decision processes, boundaries, ability to cope with uncertainty, control of technology, controlling of symbolism and the management of meaning, gender and the management of gender relations, structural factors that define the stage of action, and the power one already has (p. 167).? Such power resolve conflicts of interest, determining who gets what, when, and how.

Grant (2012) listed incentives (including bargaining) as an additional type of power.? Incentives is an exchange or trade whereby a person or organization offers something of value in exchange for doing something valued by the person/organization making the offer.? Incentives are a particular kind of offer.? The offer is an extrinsic benefit or a bonus that is neither the natural or automatic consequence of an action nor a deserved reward or compensation; a discrete prompt expected to elicit a particular response; and an offer intentionally designed to alter the status quo by motivating a person to choose differently than he or she would be likely to choose in its absence” (Grant, 2012, pg. 43).? It is considered a fair or ethical trade if the trade benefits both parties equally.? Incentives, as a form of power, is a way to get another person to do (believe and think) what one wants them to do (believe or think).? Grant’s discussion of the ethics of incentives is an ongoing discussion that is beyond the scope of this article, but the element of trade or bargaining is at the heart of power and control.

Adapting Northouse (2016) who extensively cites Raven and French’s work on bases of power, Law-Penrose, Wilson, and Taylor’s (2016) six type of resources a person has power due to collected, adopted, earned, or inherited power currencies which others may need.? Power currencies can be “collected” and be used in an exchange or a bargaining situation. Power currencies include such abilities to control resources, build relational linkages (accumulate social capital), communicate effectively, to have unique knowledge (Deutch & Gerard, 1955, citing Asch, 1952) or expertise/skills (see Fishbein, Azjen, Landy, and Anderson, 1970 for influence of expertise), and to create and foster relationships. Resource Control is the ability to reward or punish (e.g.,? have control over the schedule, control hours allocated to employees, and the ability to fire, hire, to evaluate performance, etc).? It is also having control over processes or ordering of product (e.g., if all processes to ordering product or approve the allocation of funds has to go through one person group, then that person or group has resource power currency).? The ability to create and maintain relational linkages is about knowing the right people, belonging to the right group, having the right friendships, or even being married into the right family. People who are well connected through established relationships and power circles have a power currency that can be spent through reciprocal exchanges.?People want to get to know such people because joining their social, economic, and organizational circles will give them a share of their relational power currencies too.?People who are gifted at communication have a power currency.? Such people have charisma, are likable, easy to talk to, are great listeners, seem to have the answers, and can persuade people to see their point of view and take their side. ?Furthermore, power is held by those who have knowledge and skills that others lack and need.? Such knowledge is more than just expertise, but knowledge of the social, cultural, and relational landscape (Fang et al., 2011) that newcomers need to facilitate their adjustment. This creates an imbalance in the relationship whereby people that are educated, have experience, accumulated social knowledge, and contain specialized or unique skills are valued above others in the relationship. They have the ability to control and take advantage of their information due to their accumulated power currency.

Finally, and this is perhaps most overlooked, the ability and willingness to create and develop relationships with others is a powerful currency.?This reflects the referent power base whereby followers seek to “emulate their leaders, feel admiration toward them, or harbor a strong desire for acceptance from them” (Barbuto, 2000).? Rejection, therefore, is a strong power currency.?In other words, this currency can build relationships and therefore pull people into their social life or group, or can be used to exclude or ostracize another who does not comply or live up to particular belief, relational, or behavior expectations.? Therefore, this power currency can be used to control who is in the “in-group” and who is the “out-group” using the group’s spoken and unspoken criteria.

Tannenbaum (1962) highlights certain characteristics of those with or without power.? The implication is that a person with power has the ability to control while the one who has no power has little ability to control. One characteristic is that power is desired due to the feelings of gratification, emotional high, and the increase of self-worth and self-esteem in having the ability and in the practice of exercising control. Power can be a stimulant and a driver toward commitment, “pushing an individual toward a greater and greater share of the work load of the organization” (Tannenbaum, 1962, p. 243-244).? Such commitment gives the person with power a personal stake in the outcomes of actions and decisions, creating a sense of personal stake over the outcomes.?However, the consequences of the practice and exercising of power also implies that one’s actions can be a burden due to the decisions affecting the welfare of people and the organization.?While the successes can be an exhilarating experience, it can also be a source of worry, stress, and fear.

The dynamic of power and control in social systems is important because power differences can lead to hegemony (Lentner, 2005), racism, sexism, classism, etc whereby one group or person dominates others.? Yet, control is often valued, and people are often reluctant to relinquish their perceived ability to control (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982).?For example, in Giacalone and Rosenfeld's (1991) discussion of gender effects in impression management in equity systems, stereotypes will often be protected if it affords the person the impression of power in one’s position, while those without power will act contrary to the stereotype to give the impression of someone with power.?While one can act within a system of power, the belief and relational structure affords little (or sometimes no) choice.? Another example in Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1991), the system is an environment to be managed through compliance by subordinates who make decisions that may include discrimination based on preferences based on stereotypes (e.g., gender, race, ethical code, religion, or any other prevailing norm) by supervisors (those who have greater power through position)-even though such acts are often illegal.?Therefore, those that hold power affects the ability for those who are powerless to act with autonomy.?In the string and nest metaphors various degrees of power is seen as control over someone in some way.?As was discussed about extrinsic and intrinsic characteristics, the degree of autonomy becomes less as more power and control factors are present.

Those that do not have power currencies can be classified as “helpless.”? Helplessness may be exhibited by passivity, withdrawal, and submissiveness (Rothbaum, et al, 1982).? The concept of “helplessness” was characterized by Deci and Ryan (1985, 2017) as Amotive (AM).? Amotive individuals may feel incompetent and believe they have no power or control (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978).? The sense of helplessness creates a need to regain a sense of control.? According to Rothbaum, et al (1982), to gain control one has two options.?One is to bring the environment into line with their own belief and relational expectations (primary control), and the other is to bring themselves into line with the environmental forces (secondary control) or compliance.?In other words, one can change the environment, but one can also change one’s self (Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982).?In belief and relational structural framework, the focus is on secondary control in the face of primary control by environmental entities who exerts belief and relational expectations using power and control factors.? While helplessness may characterize being in the minority (marked by lack of power, status, or competence), such position does not mean that one is helpless and lack the ability to influence the people or environment (Nail, 1986).

In relation to the organization domain and the belief and relational structure continuum, Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli (1997), citing different researchers, traces the change of organization’s management and organizational structures from high controlling to more autonomous, or more balanced employee-relations, in response to external pressures.?The movement toward more autonomous middle is marked by structural and relational changes through large-scale reduction of managerial and professional jobs, externalization of work, flattening the organization, developing new industrial relation systems, addressing management structures, developing employee governance systems, and attempting to create a clan-like flexibility by encouraging employees to adopt permeable and expandable work roles.? While the movement has not been toward complete autonomy, Tsui’s et al’s research provides a glimpse of how organizations attempt to utilize giving employees more autonomy to improve the organization’s flexibility, ability to change, productivity, and make the organization lean through creating a balanced exchange.?Tsui, et al’s research is relevant here because it highlights how organizations seek to balance out the control through allowing employees a role in determining the employee-employer relationship.?A dissenting voice for equal power and control comes from Dahl (1962) who states that some people have more power than others and alludes that such inequality of power is a fact of human nature.

Autonomy

On the other side of the spectrum is autonomy. The major research addressing autonomy is Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985, 1987; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989), which is an extension of Allport’s work.?Self-Determination theory has a long history of research into business and other fields and is relevant to the discussion of the dynamics forming and maintaining belief and relational structures. Autonomy refers to people having the ability to be intrinsically self-directed which requires egalitarian social and political structures whereby power is shared (Alvesson & Blom, 2019).?Autonomy mitigates dependency and so minimizes influences of control.?What happens in between the two poles is determined by how much power and control is exerted or how much power and control is mitigated.

Self-determination Theory (SDT) asserts that the motivation of behavior is determined by factors that promote either controlling (using various means to pressure one to think, feel, behave in certain ways, or adopt certain positions [beliefs], etc) or autonomy supportive acts that support the competence of the person’s ability to act autonomous (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Autonomy, as Deci and Ryan explains, “connotes an inner endorsement of one’s actions, the sense that they emanate from oneself and are one’s own.? Autonomous action is thus freely chosen” (p. 1026) due to the lack of pressure present or perceived.? Choices that are freely chosen is to take responsibility (Miller, 1999). Important is the concept of choice, which is used by Deci and Ryan differently than a two dimensional understanding (Choose either this, or that).?The authors use it in an organismic context which is holistic and integrated functioning.?Behavior that is autonomous is endorsed by the whole self which one takes responsibility (Hence, the belief and relational structure “Relational Freedom and Responsibility”). Another element of choice is, while choice enhances intrinsic motivation, choice only allows for greater feeling of autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2004), but may not allow true autonomy.

The foundation of Self-Determination Theory reflects Rogers (1995) and the founder of Gestalt Therapy, Perls (1992).?One of Roger’s (1995) principles is the “actualizing tendency” which reflects the need of individuals to actualize themselves, to become one’s potential (p. 351).?Expanding on this, Rogers states, “the directional trend which is evident in all organic and human life--the urge to expand, extend, develop, mature--the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism, or the self” (p. 351). Yet, this only happens when the person is truly autonomous, free to have the courage to stretch and grow, to become more and more of one’s potentialities, and hurl one’s self into the “stream of life.”? The “actualizing tendency” is an intrinsic process of adaptation and growth (Kegan, 1982).

The terminology is used loosely in the context of organizations because it asserts that organizations, because they comprise of people, have an actualizing tendency in its struggle and drive to expand, grow, and become effective.?Such actualization does not happen within a structure of strong power and control factors which, according to this belief and relational framework, resides on the level of behavior and belief restriction and control and becomes less limited the further along the continuum.?The drive toward organization actualization is a development toward autonomy and away from systems of control by external forces. Adapting Rogers (1989, pp. 170-171), the organization moves toward being autonomous, allowing everyone a place in the choosing of the the goal and direction. The organization becomes responsible for itself, and deciding what activities, actions, and ways of being have meaning. Rogers rightly characterizes the movement from one behavior and belief typology to another as “frightening responsible freedom,” noting that such movement is fraught with fear and almost no confidence.

Unrestrained, people actively seek opportunities to develop their fullest potential.?Such development is through autonomous striving to fulfill SDT’s three basic needs: experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness.?The autonomous person seeks to broaden knowledge, connect with people, seek challenges, and to integrate these experiences into an authentic sense of self (self-actualization).? Crucially, this motivation is regulated by the self (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Neyrink, Niemiec, Soenens, DeWitte & Van den Broeck, 2007; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Deci & Ryan, 2016). Because it is self-regulated, “this natural inclination toward assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and exploration is essential to cognitive and social development and represents a principal source of enjoyment and vitality throughout life” (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1993; Ryan, 1995, as cited by Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 70).

In business applications, autonomy is found in Endrejat, Baumgarten, and Kauffeld’s (2017) examining of Motivation Interviewing (MI) in relationship to Lewin’s organization change management theory.? MI shares Lewin’s understanding that motivating people to change, a MI-practitioner should avoid pressure, lecturing, and coercion (Lewin, 1947a; Miller & Rollnick, 2013, as cited by Endrejat, Baumgarten, and Kauffeld, 2017), and that learning processes should be formed by accentuating the acquisition of knowledge (changing belief structure through the acquisition of new information) through an active process guided by the individual itself (Lewin & Grabbe, 1945; Miller, 1983 as cited by Endrejat, Baumgarten, and Kauffeld, 2017).? Autonomy can also be found in Wheatley (2006) who states that imposing control restricts people’s freedom and inhibits local change, creating the conditions that threatens the organization’s survival.

The Appeal of Control

Is control so bad?? Why would one want to be controlled?? Human beings need harmony or equilibrium within their environment (Baumeister & Alquist, 2009) which being controlled can provide.? Being controlled by others or a system can provide psychological, sociological, and interpersonal safety, security, certainty (truth), inner-peace, harmony with environment (accommodation conflict style), to fit in, navigate social systems, protection, and provide a sense of power and control over one’s life.?Control does this through the development of uniformity of values, beliefs, social norms and processes, uniformity of message, and predictability (Ponce de Leon & Kay, 2020).?In organizations (and other social systems), control factors implemented through rules, policies and procedures, norms, and in-place values and beliefs enable the social system to operate smoothly and serve its function.?Often, much of the political structure is to counteract the feelings associated with fear associated with helplessness (lacking control).?Controls ensure consistency of product quality (quality control), predictability, provides short-cuts for problem-solving (which is part of the belief structure), and minimize risk.? ?

Many of these are the benefits of self-control that support the willingness of the individual to be controlled by others.? For example, applying self-determination theory to “The Marshmallow Experiment,” the researchers measured a child’s ability to show self-restraint. but they also acted as controllers for the kids through a punishment and reward (two power and control factors) scenario.?The child that showed self-restraint was willing to be controlled through reward of another marshmallow and to avoid the negative factor of being denied another marshmallow.?Baumeister and Alquist (2009) cites a study by Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone (2004) whose trait measures of self-control significantly predicted a host of positive outcomes, including interpersonal success, school achievement, and adjustment, secure and satisfying relationships, and emotional stability.?There were also less pathological problems, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, drinking problems, and psychoticism. These effects remained significant after controlling for social desirability, which suggests they are not some mere expression of self-report bias.

Although self-control can lead to having strength to be autonomous and resist control from the outer environment, living in an environment that supports self-control through controlling systems (including organization systems) is appealing because such control aids one in maintaining power and control over one’s life.?In other words, if one is willing to be controlled and to conform to belief, behavioral, relational, and social expectations, then having one’s life determined creates a good life through which the return can be preferable to the disequilibrium in a “out of control” environment.?Despite the inner drive toward autonomy, the sense of safety, security, comfort, etc is preferable and may lead one to seek out social, cultural, organizational, and religious controlling systems.?Such systems provide like-minded group support, affirmation, and love.?The group also provides the person with vicarious control and can aid in providing interpretive control.?The group can begin to take on a belief and behavior compliance or restriction and control typology in which the person may lose their autonomy as the control is given to the group. The cost is the loss of self, self-identity, and self-worth.

Control vs Autonomy in the Organization Context

Much of the research in organizations is focused on dyadic relationships, but these constructs about power and control can be useful for understanding the belief and relational dynamics of control vs autonomy in organizations.? For example, applying the above thinking to organizations, the following would read: If one viewed one’s company as controlling, then all actions are coerced, manipulated, or forced in some way through various means (guilt, shame, fear, etc.)-a characteristic of either Behavior and Belief Restriction and Control or a Behavior and Belief Compliant relationship with one’s co-workers.?One is driven to believe and act as one feels one has to believe and act in order to maintain the relationship, be accepted, be supported, receive a raise or promotion, or to avoid demotion, sanctions, write-up, or be fired. If one acts or believes contrary to that which is expected, then one risks disequilibrium. In other words, the company (and those within it), who controls all aspect of one’s work life, will cause bad things to happen, and if “bad” events happen in one’s work life, one is driven to figure out what one did wrong to deserve punishment or to not be rewarded.?Also, if the company controls everything or determines everything through choice, then the responsibility for failure becomes theirs or a co-worker (the blame game).? Or, it could be internalized through guilt, shame, or self-destructive processes that affect self-esteem and self-worth due to one’s lack of ability to self-regulate.?One could feel trapped in quicksand whereby every decision they make debilitates and paralyzes them creating a lack of control.?The loss of self-control resources affecting future self-control implies a spiral degradation.?In other words, the choices one makes to dig one’s self out of the internalized “pit” dooms the person to self-defeat and leads to further low self-esteem and low self-worth. The only choice is to suffer or leave.

Conversely, if the company is viewed as autonomously supportive, characterized as one who provides freedom of choice, self-directed work (Alvesson & Blom, 2019), provides unconditional positive self-regard (Rogers, 1961) (loves no matter what), does not control one’s life, or holds punishment and rewards over one’s head, etc), then the choices made are authentic and freely chosen and the person would act out of Relational Freedom and Responsibility.?Therefore, it is logical that if a company/leader/supervisor was viewed as non-controlling or autonomous supporting, then one is given freedom without manipulation or any means of force.?Such freedom also comes with a cost.?The responsibility for the relationship is one’s own because a controller cannot be blamed or made the scapegoat. What would one do with a company whose relationship loves, forgives, and imparts grace no matter what? Love back?? Care for the company/leadership/supervisor/colleagues/co-workers?? Share one's gifts with them? Give time to them?? Pour one’s heart into one's learning and personal and professional development? Or would one take advantage, manipulate and use others, shirk responsibility, etc.?

Although Perls (1992) never applied his work to organizations, his work has application.? The organization, as an organism consisting of a community of individuals, may struggle with different aspects of control. One is inner control whereby the organization struggles with internal manipulations, pressures, and emotional stresses.?At the same time, such control is experienced as external control from the pressure by its own members or the outside environment. Within this perspective is a conflict (Loder calls this a formula for a trauma) that ensues within organizations that use power and control factors to suppress the determination of people striving to be autonomous. As was shown before, the energy is spent in the internal vs the external struggle leaving little energy for anything else (In organizations, one can see this in either a lack of customer support, employee support, product development, or other essential aspects of its functions). This is the cost of strong control- the eternal conflict and instability that can only end in death for the organization. In another context, think about the body who works hard to deal with an infection. The person is immobilized, and if not helped, eventually dies.

In Roger’s view, an organization that prioritize and focus on the “actualizing tendency”?functions to help individuals develop, grow, and move into an autonomous role.?Establishing a balanced relationship whereby each part has no control over each other is essential to the health of all parts. In other words, the organization seeks balance by creating a common world whereby all parts live without exerting control over the other. This is what is known as autonomous system.?This may also reflect what Neyrinck, et al (2010) describes as integrated regulation.?As Rogers might propose, the organization that seeks an “actualizing tendency” is seeking far more than the limits of its capitalistic role, but the benefits of helping itself, its environment, and the sum of its parts to holistically develop beyond its present boundaries. Or, as in SDT, the organization seeks to help people actively seek opportunities to develop their fullest potential (Rogers, 1961) in all parts of their life.

Conclusion

Control vs Autonomy is a relational dynamic that can be filled with tension. People naturally want to become autonomous in their lives, and organizations can either be helpful in that process, or ca counter with strong control over the employee. To see this control, look back at the definition of a power and control factor and then look at the organization (or any other context). Also note the conflict. Unions form to gain power to control to counter resource control, the organization leaders use various approaches or styles to control subordinates/followers, training and development programs shape thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and behaviors, rules and regulations are create to control choice, and structures and processes are used to passively control; all of these create opportunities for conflict because it requires submission or compliance to the presence of power and control. Autonomous structures and processes will still have conflict, but the conflict is centered around the goal and purpose (and how to fulfill the goal and purpose) of the organization instead of the counter-productive conflict of fighting against itself.

In the belief and relational structure typologies, the relational dynamics of control vs autonomy shows the quality and type of relationships within the organization. It shows if the relationship is micromanaged, rigid, exclusive, and organization-centered, or if the relationship is open, inclusive, flexible, and person-centered. On one side, the dynamic shows the disparities within the organization. Who is above whom? Who is more important? Who has worth, and who has more value? Whose view or thoughts "count"? Who is expendable? Power and control creates inequality, hegemony, prejudicial systems, unhealthy dependence, and in-groups and out-groups. On the other side, autonomous systems shows the equalities within the organization. Nobody is above anyone else. Everyone has equal value. Everyone is important. Everyone Everyone's views "count". Everyone is independent. Everyone is in the "in-group" (meaning there is no out-group). Everyone is included. Everyone is involved. Autonomy requires advanced relational skills that include advanced communication, a developmental approach to conflict, and constant awareness of the presence of power and control that disrupts the relational balance and shifts more power and control to one person or group. Organizations or groups that operate autonomously are acutely aware of this relational dynamic and actively work to maintain the relational balance.

Your thoughts?

References

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-Managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408–437.

Baumeister, R. F., & Alquist, J. L. (2009). Is there a downside to good self-control? Self and Identity, 8(2–3), 115–130.

Dahl, R. A. (1962). The concept of power. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Springer Science and Business Media, LLC.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–37.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.

Endrejat, P. C., Baumgarten, F., & Kauffeld, S. (2017). When theory meets practice: combining Lewin’s ideas about change with motivational interviewing to increase energy-saving behaviours within organizations. Journal of Change Management, 17(2), 101–120.

French, J. R., Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.

Garfield, Z. H., von Rueden, C., & Hagen, E. H. (2019). The evolutionary anthropology of political leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 59–80.

Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465–477.

Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self Problem and Process in Human Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2016). An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kunda, G. (2006). Engineering Culture Control and Commitment in a High Tech Corporation. Temple University Press.

McGregor, D. (2006). The Human Side of Enterprise (Annotated). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Miller, J. (1999). Of choice. Social Research, 66(4), 1121–1135.

Northouse, Peter, G. (2016). Leadership (7th ed.). Sage Publications Inc.

Perls, F. S. (1992). Gestalt therapy Verbatim. Gouldsboro: The Gestalt Journal Press.

Ponce de Leon, R., & Kay, A. C. (2020). Political ideology and compensatory control mechanisms. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 112–117.

Rogers, C. R. (1995). On Becoming a Person. Western Behavioral Sciences Institute.

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 5–37.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist,? 55(1), 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: The Guilford Press.

Starhawk (1987) Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority and Mystery. San Francisco, CA: Harper.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1962). Control in organizations: Individual adjustment and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(2), 236-257.

Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemic, C., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A. (2007). Examining the relations among extrinsic versus intrinsic work value orientations, basic need satisfaction, and job experience: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277.

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership in the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (Third Edition). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.