4.5 Article

The impact of control styles and control modes on individual-level outcomes: a first test of the integrated IS project control theory

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 134-152

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0960085X.2020.1718008

关键词

Information systems development; project control; formal control; informal control; control style; task performance; job satisfaction; theory testing

资金

  1. Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation [P2016-0085]
  2. Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation [MMW 2016.0078]
  3. Torsten Soderberg Foundation [E54-15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While IS development (ISD) projects are essential for deploying digital technologies in organisations, they are notoriously challenging to control and complete successfully. Prior ISD project control research mostly conceptualises control activities in terms of formal and informal control modes and frequently focuses on performance effects at the project level. We argue that new insight can be gained by moving beyond these conventions to include control enactment as well as individual-level control effects. In this study, we present new findings that could precipitate a change in how researchers think about, and practitioners exercise, control in ISD projects. Specifically, we provide a first test of the recently proposed Integrated IS Project Control Theory by analysing the impacts of control modes (what) and control styles (how) on project team members' task performance and job satisfaction. Employing data from 171 ISD projects, we find significant support for this theory by confirming the positive impact of an enabling control style on both task performance and job satisfaction, and by demonstrating that control style is more important than control modes in explaining individual-level control effects. Further, the results of a post-hoc analysis suggest complex interaction effects between an enabling control style and formal controls.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据