Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T18:51:01.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Peer control in organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Misty L. Loughry
Edited by
Sim B. Sitkin ,
Laura B. Cardinal  and
Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema
Misty L. Loughry
Affiliation:
Georgia Southern University
Sim B. Sitkin
Affiliation:
Duke University, North Carolina
Laura B. Cardinal
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Katinka M. Bijlsma-Frankema
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Peer control occurs when workers who are at the same organizational level or in the same field exert lateral control over their peers. Peer control is widespread in organizations, yet is not well understood. This chapter discusses the scope of the peer control concept, including different types of formal and informal peer controls designed by managers and workers. The potential benefits and drawbacks of peer control are also discussed. Five theoretical perspectives that can be used to examine informal peer control are reviewed. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future research on peer control.

Peer control is widespread in organizations and impacts a variety of important individual and organizational outcomes, but relatively little management research examines peer control as compared to other forms of organizational control, such as supervision/leadership and incentive pay. Yet wider spans of control and greater use of teams and self-managed work groups have decreased organizations' use of direct supervision and increased the importance of interpersonal influence and lateral coordination to direct and motivate work in organizations (Ilgen and Pulakos,1999; Pfeffer, 1997). Furthermore, although competitive and economic conditions often leave little room for organizations to offer enough incentive pay to have a substantial influence on workers, the discretionary rewards and sanctions that coworkers give one another frequently do have very meaningful influences on workers.

The goals of this chapter are to show that peer control is an important, yet insufficiently understood, element of the organizational control system and to stimulate new research on peer control.

Type
Chapter
Information
Organizational Control , pp. 324 - 362
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akerlof, G. 1976. The economics of caste and of the rat race and other woeful tales. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 90: 599–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchian, A. A. and Demsetz, H. 1972. Production, information costs and economic organization. American Economic Review, 62: 777–795.Google Scholar
Almeida-Bradaschia, C. and Kuwamoto, P. E. 2007. Mobbing on the workplace: a worldwide problem. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Arnott, R. and Stiglitz, J. E. 1991. Moral hazard and nonmarket institutions: dysfunctional crowding out or peer monitoring?American Economic Review, 81: 179–190.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. 1964. Control in large organizations. Management Science, 10: 397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, P. W. B. and Wood, R. E. 2002. Self versus others' ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55: 871–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., and Sonnenstuhl, W. J. 2002. Driven to drink: managerial control, work-related risk factors, and employee problem drinking. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 637–658.Google Scholar
Baker, G. P., Jensen, M. C., and Murphy, K. J. 1988. Compensation and incentives: practice vs. theory. Journal of Finance, 42: 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberger, P. A. 2007. Competitive appraising: a social dilemma perspective on the conditions in which multi-round peer evaluation may result in counter-productive team dynamics. Human Resource Management Review, 17: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberger, P. A., Erev, I., Kimmel, M., and Oref-Chen, T. 2005. Peer assessment, individual performance, and contribution to group processes: the impact of rater anonymity. Group and Organization Management, 30: 44–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, J. R. and Cheney, G. 1994. The concept and the practices of discipline in contemporary organizational life. Communication Monographs, 61: 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, C. 1938. Functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Barron, J. M. and Gjerde, K. P. 1997. Peer pressure in an agency relationship. Journal of Labor Economics, 15: 234–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beehr, T. A., Ivanitskaya, L., Hansen, C. P., Erofeev, D., and Gudanowski, D. M. 2001. Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings: relationships with each other and with performance and selection predictors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 775–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M., Jong, B. A., and Bunt, G. G. 2008. Heed, a missing link between trust, monitoring and performance in knowledge intensive teams. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 19: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bono, J. E. and Colbert, A. E. 2005. Understanding responses to feedback: the role of core self-evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 58: 171–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callister, R. R., Kramer, M. W., and Turban, D. B. 1999. Feedback seeking following career transitions. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 428–438.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., and Medsker, G. J. 1996. Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49: 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinal, L. B. 2001. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science, 12: 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinal, L. B., Sitkin, S. B., and Long, C. P. 2004. Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organization Science, 15: 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmichael, H. L. 1988. Incentives in academics: why is there tenure?Journal of Political Economy, 96: 453–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. X. and Sandino, T. 2007. Do internal management controls mitigate employee theft in organizations? AAA MAS Meeting Paper, July 30. Downloaded from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1004184.
Covaleski, M. A., Dirsmith, M. W., Heian, J. B., and Samuel, S. 1998. The calculated and the avowed: techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in big six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 293–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cravens, D. W., Lassk, F. G., Low, G. S., Marshall, G. W., and Moncrief, W. C. 2004. Formal and informal management control combinations in sales organizations: the impact on salesperson consequences. Journal of Business Research, 57: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, M. 1949. A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2: 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., and DuBois, D. L. 2008. Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72: 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erez, A., LePine, J. A., and Elms, H. 2002. Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55: 929–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzamel, M. and Willmott, H. 1998. Accounting for teamwork: a critical study of group-based systems of organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 358–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C. 1983a. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C. 1983b. Agency problems and residual claims. Journal of Law and Economics, 26: 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedor, D. B., Bettenhausen, K. L., and Davis, W. 1999. Peer reviews: employees' dual roles as raters and recipients. Group and Organization Management, 24: 92–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D. 1984. The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9: 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, P. E. and Hughes, J. S. 1997. Mutual monitoring and best agency contracts. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 153: 334–355.Google Scholar
Guzzo, R. A. and Shea, G. P. 1992. Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In Dunette, M. D. and Hough, L. M. (eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. III: 269–313. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals in organizations. In Dunette, M. A. and Hough, L. M. (eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. III: 199–267. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hechter, M. 1984. When actors comply: monitoring costs and the production of social order. Acta Sociologica, 3: 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedge, J. W., Bruskiewicz, K. T., Logan, K. K., Hanson, M. A., and Buck, D. 1999. Crew resource management team and individual job analysis and rating scale development for air force tanker crews (Technical report no. 336). Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. 1978. The poverty of management control philosophy. Academy of Management Review, 3: 450–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., and Hedlund, J. 1998. Extending the multilevel theory of team decision making: effects of feedback and experience in hierarchical teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 269–282.Google Scholar
Hollinger, R. C. and Clark, J. P. 1983. Deterrence in the workplace: perceived certainty, perceived severity, and employee theft. Social Forces, 62: 398–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmstrom, B. 1982. Moral hazard in teams. Bell Journal of Economics, 13: 324–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmstrom, B. and Milgrom, P. 1991. Multitask principal-agent analyses: incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7: 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, W. S., Leiner, J. J., and Young, G. R. 2008. Forensic accounting. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar
Ilgen, D. R. and Pulakos, E. D. (eds.). 1999. The changing nature of performance: implications for staffing, motivation, and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
Islam, M. M. 1996. Peer monitoring in the credit market. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 26: 452–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. L. and LePine, J. A. 2003. Peer responses to a team's weakest link: a test and extension of LePine and Van Dyne's Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobides, M. G. and Croson, D. C. 2001. Information policy: shaping the value of agency relationships. Academy of Management Review, 26: 202–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, B. J. 1988. Toward a theory of marketing control: environmental context, control types, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52: 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, B. J., Stathakopoulos, V., and Krishnan, H. S. 1993. Control combinations in marketing: conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 57: 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, E. and Lazear, E. P. 1992. Peer pressure and partnerships. Journal of Political Economy, 100: 801–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., and Yates, J. 2006. Life in the trading zone: structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17: 22–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, S. 1975. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 769–783.Google ScholarPubMed
Kerr, S. and Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, L. J. 2004. Deploying common systems globally: the dynamics of control. Information Systems Research, 15: 374–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsch, L. J., Ko, D., and Haney, M. H. 2010. Investigating the antecedents of team-based clan control: adding social capital as a predictor. Organizational Science, 21: 469–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. W. J. (eds.). 2000. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., and Brockner, J. 2007. Taking a multifoci approach to the study of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model. Journal of Management, 33: 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazega, E. 2000. Rule enforcement among peers: a lateral control regime. Organization Studies, 21: 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LePine, J. A. and Dyne, L. 2001. Peer responses to low performers: an attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26: 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., and Saul, J. R. 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61: 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughry, M. L. and Tosi, H. L. 2008. Performance implications of peer monitoring. Organization Science, 19: 876–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manski, C. F. 1993. Identification of social effects: the reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies, 60: 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manz, C. C. and Sims, Jr., H. P. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. A. and Panzer, F. J. 2004. The influence of team monitoring on team processes and performance. Human Performance, 17: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., and Gilson, L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34: 410–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, K. A. 1985. Control in business organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
Merchant, K. A. 1988. Progressing toward a theory of marketing control: a comment. Journal of Marketing, 52: 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. and Viswesvaran, C. 2005. Whistleblowing in organizations: an examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, and retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62: 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. R., Zaloshnja, E. and Spicer, R. S. 2007. Effectiveness and benefit-cost of peer-based workplace substance abuse prevention coupled with random testing. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39: 565–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, E. W. and Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403–419.Google Scholar
Nordstrom, R., Lorenzi, P., and Hall, R. V. 1990. A review of public posting of performance feedback in work settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11: 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: it's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1977. The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, W. G. 1979. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25: 833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, K. D. 1984. Mechanisms of administrative control over managers in educational organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 573–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. 1994. The costs of legalization: the hidden dangers of increasingly formalized control. In Sitkin, S. B. and Bies, R. J. (eds.), The legalistic organization2: 29–346. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J. 1997. New directions for organization theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pullins, E. and Fine, L. M. 2002. How the performance of mentoring activities affects the mentor's job outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 22: 259–271.Google Scholar
Rhodes, S. R. and Steers, R. M. 1981. Conventional vs. worker-owned organizations. Human Relations, 34: 1,013–1,035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, S. L. and Weldon, E. 1993. Feedback seeking in groups: a theoretical perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roethlisberger, F. J. and Dickson, W. J. 1939. Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roy, D. F. 1959. Banana time: job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18: 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salancik, G. R. and Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., and Burke, C. S. 2005. Is there a “big five” in teamwork?Small Group Research, 36: 555–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sewell, G. 1998. The discipline of teams: the control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 397–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. 1945. Administrative behavior: a study of decision making processes in administrative organizations. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sitkin, S. B. and Bies, R. J. 1994. The legalistic organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sitkin, S. B. and George, E. 2005. Managerial trust-building through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms. International Sociology, 20: 307–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitkin, S. B. and Sutcliffe, K. M. 1991. Dispensing legitimacy: the influence of professional, organizational, and legal controls on pharmacist behavior. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 8: 269–295.Google Scholar
Smither, J. W., London, M. and Reilly, R. R. 2005. Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58: 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K. M., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., and Grant, A. 2005. A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16: 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, J. E. 1990. Peer monitoring and credit markets. The World Bank Economic Review, 4: 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, R. I. and Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 685–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, A. S. 1968. Control in organizations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Taylor, F. W. 1916. The principles of scientific management. In Shafritz, J. M. and Ott, J. S. (eds.), Classics of organization theory: 66–81. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Townsend, K. 2005. Electronic surveillance and cohesive teams: room for resistance in an Australian call center?New Technology, Work, and Employment, 20: 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, K. 2007. Who has control in teams without teamworking?Economic and Industrial Democracy, 28: 622–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Towry, K. L. 2003. Control in a teamwork environment – the impact of social ties on the effectiveness of mutual monitoring contracts. The Accounting Review, 78: 1,069–1,095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevino, L. K. and Victor, B. 1992. Peer reporting of unethical behavior: a social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 38–64.Google Scholar
Turner, K. L. and Makhija, M. V. 2006. The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 31: 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mierlo, H., Rutte, C. G., Kompler, M. A. J., and Doorewaard, H. A. C. M. 2005. Self-managing teamwork and psychological well-being. Group and Organization Management, 30: 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varian, H. R. 1990. Monitoring agents with other agents. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 146: 153–174.Google Scholar
Wageman, R. and Baker, G. 1997. Incentives and cooperation: the joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 139–158.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M. and Obstfeld, D. 1999. Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21: 81–123.Google Scholar
Welbourne, T. M. and Ferrante, C. J. 2008. To monitor or not to monitor: a study of individual outcomes from monitoring one's peers under gainsharing and merit pay. Group and Organization Management, 33: 130–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welbourne, T. M., Balkin, D. B., and Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 1995. Gainsharing and mutual monitoring: a combined agency-organizational justice interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 881–899.Google Scholar
Westphal, J. D. and Khanna, P. 2003. Keeping directors in line: social distancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 361–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, D. M. and Lightle, S. S. 2000. Management reports on internal controls. Journal of Accountancy, 190: 57–64.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. 1965. Social facilitation. Science, 149: 269–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×