Klein and the Integrated Control Theory - Essay Example

For decades, management theory has included elements of control theory; the means by which a given leader, supervisor, or manager, can seek to monitor and effect direct change to workflow or a project as a means of correcting or improving its focus or approach. Yet, the main thrust of this focus has been on a one-directional degree of interaction between the manager/supervisor and the employee/employees. Positing that this was in fact in an incorrect way to view the control component of managerial function and responsibility, Klein put forward that integrated control theory was best suited towards attaining the goals and end results that managers sought within such situations (Neilson, 2013).

As a function of this understanding and approach, the following discussion will be concentric upon defining Klein’s integrated control theory, discussing the organizational elements that are needed to support this model, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses that it portends, and summarizing the findings that will have been engaged. It is the further hope of this author that such a level of understanding will provide the reader with a more informed understanding of how the integrated control theory differs from traditional understandings of control theory that have been put forward within managerial literature and training for many decades.

Organizational Elements to support the model:As even a cursory level of analysis reveals, the Klein model of integrated control theory is primarily focused on the need and ability of the manager and employee to work towards a mutual goal via effective forms of two-way communication (Jiang et al., 2014). Yet, before determining that what Klein is proposing is nothing more than a cooperative level of engagement, the reader would do well to consider the fact that within the communication pattern, the manager is encouraged to understand and seek to impact upon attitudes and effectors of attitudes that are ultimately responsible for why a given project or task is off track.

By understanding elements related to situational factors, behavior change, performance, feedback, and attitudes, Klein promoted the understanding that key organizational factors had a primary and measurable effect with respect to the overall efficacy of the “control” process of management (Mi, 2014). Furthermore, it should be understood that prior to the Klein model of interpreting control within the integrative control theory, the process was one that did not factor in such nuances.

Strengths and Weaknesses:As has been previously alluded to, the failure of other models to consider the unique nuances of personality psychology and organization culture meant that previous attempts at defining and prescribing successful change with respect to theories of managerial control were incomplete at best; and destined to fail at worst (Carlson, 2014). As such, the key strength of Klein’s approach lies in the fact that it encourages the manager to engage each and every situation from an integrative approach that is mindful of a variety of different factors that affect the attitude, culture, and ultimate work performance of the individual employee in question (Pushenko, 2013).

As with any theory, the strengths also exhibit key weaknesses that are more often than not the converse of the very same strengths that have thus far been detailed. Accordingly, the following section will be contingent on discussing these key shortcomings/weaknesses and explaining how the integrated control theory proposed by Klein falls short of managerial perfection in its ultimate application.However, as might be expected, Klein’s theory also has some glaring shortcomings. As with any human resource or managerial theory, the element of complexity is oftentimes a prime impediment that discourages stakeholders from learning or applying such theories within the course of their daily lives (Zabor, 2014).

This is very much the case with regard to the integrative control theory proposed by Klein. The actual level of oversight, understanding, and engagement that the manager must make in order to ensure that the theory is being applied appropriately borders on omniscient knowledge; something that obviously no supervisor or manager can have access to.Yet, rather than throwing the theory out completely due to its relative complexity and all of the considerations that it requires the manager to take into account, a far more actionable and appropriate level of engagement would be to refine the theory to focus on likely behavioral inputs and the triggers/approaches that could be utilized as a means of changing these (Eckenberg et al., 2013). Although some of the depth and complexity of Klein’s model would necessarily be lost within such an approach, the fact of the matter is that the core and fundamental approach that Klein proposes could still be replicated within such a reduction.

Effectively, Klein’s theory is quite simple if employed properly. What is meant by this has to do with the need to focus on the goals of an individual institution or group and seek to effect these utilizing set strategies; something that all organizations and groups can gain a benefit from employing (Yi & Xiangqian, 2014).