Goal Incongruence Research Articles

A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms

The problem of organization is the problem of obtaining cooperation among a collection of individuals or units who share only partially congruent objectives. When a team of individuals collectively produces a single output, there develops the problem of how to distribute the rewards emanating from that output in such a manner that each team member is equitably rewarded. If equitable rewards are not forthcoming, members will, in future cooperative ventures, adjust their efforts in such a manner that all will be somewhat worse off (cf. Simon [Simon, H. A. 1964. On the concept of organizational goal. Admin. Sci. Quart. 9 (1, June) 1–22.], Marschak [Marschak, Thomas A. 1965. Economic theories of organization. J. G. March, ed. Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago, Ill., 423–450.], Alchian and Demsetz [Alchian, Armen A., Harold Demsetz. 1972. Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. 62 777–795.). It is the objective of this paper to describe three fundamentally different mechanisms through which organizations can seek to cope with this problem of evaluation and control. The three will be referred to as markets, bureaucracies, and clans. In a fundamental sense, markets deal with the control problem through their ability to precisely measure and reward individual contributions; bureaucracies rely instead upon a mixture of close evaluation with a socialized acceptance of common objectives; and clans rely upon a relatively complete socialization process which effectively eliminates goal incongruence between individuals. This paper explores the organizational manifestations of these three approaches to the problem of control. The paper begins with an example from a parts distribution division of a major company which serves to give some flesh to what might otherwise be overly-abstract arguments. Through the example, each of the three mechanisms is explicated briefly and discussed in terms of two prerequisite conditions, one social and the other informational. The more concrete organization design features of the three forms are considered, along with some consideration of the unique costs accompanying each form.

What Do Developers Really Think AboutSoftware Quality

For an organisation to get the biggest increase in software quality that it can from introducing a more formal and quality-focused process of software development, the attitudes that developers and managers have to any new working practices must be understood, listen to and accommodated. It is only then that software quality will be improved and sustained in the long-term. This paper presents the results of a recent wide-ranging study which explores the attitudes that developers and managers have to software quality generally, and to the introduction and use of quality-oriented working practices specifically. The study is based on the analysis of over two hundred questionnaire responses from software developers and managers in a number of organisations. All of these organisations either had, or were in the process of introducing, a formal quality management system. The study found that developers and managers often had markedly different perspectives on the usefulness and scope of mechanisms for software quality. Sometimes managers were more enthusiastic about a particular mechanism for example the collection and use of software metrics. Whilst at other times developers were more keen on a particular mechanism for example the use of standards. The study also revealed some interesting goal variations between developers and managers. For instance developers rated software reliability as a much more important organisational goal than managers did Conversely, and probably more predictably, managers rated low costs as a much more important organisational goal than developers did. Clearly such goal incongruence would seem a potential source of quality problems. Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 11, © 1995 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517