Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reframe the debate about the tension between management control and employee empowerment by drawing on a theory of paradox. Reframing the problem in this way draws attention to the variety of ways in which organisations can attend to both control and empowerment simultaneously. Design/methodology/approach The authors undertake a conceptual examination of the relationship between empowerment and control using a paradox theory lens. First, the authors bring together two dimensions of empowerment – structural empowerment and psychological empowerment – and combine them to produce three new empowerment “scenarios”: illusory empowerment, obstructed empowerment and authentic empowerment. For each of these three scenarios, the central tenets of paradox theory are applied in order to explain the nature of the paradoxical tension, anticipated behavioural responses and the resulting challenges for ongoing management control. Findings The authors find that neither structural nor psychological empowerment alone can account for variation in behavioural responses to management control. The conceptual analysis highlights the interplay of socio-ideological control and systems of accountability in generating psychological empowerment and demonstrates that this does not come at a cost to management control but instead results in a reduction in the scale and scope of ongoing challenges. Originality/value This paper contributes a new theoretical perspective on the classic problem of tension between management control and employee empowerment. Rather than positioning control and empowerment either as a managerial choice or dialectic, the authors identify three different ways in which organisations can engage with both paradoxical elements simultaneously.

Autonomous motivation, a fundamental factor influencing research success, can be undermined when people feel pressured, managed or controlled. So how do universities – which are under increasing external pressure to manage research activities to produce outcomes – exert management control without threatening the autonomous motivation of their researchers? We address this question through an exploratory case study of the management control systems used in two university faculties. Our results confirm the importance of autonomous motivation in driving researchers’ activity and show how incentives, performance evaluation and cultural–administrative structures can be designed to not only preserve, but also enhance and leverage this motivation.

No abstract

Partners' efforts to manage risk extend far beyond decisions made when an alliance is formed and continue throughout its lifecycle. As an alliance matures, it is expected that partners will adapt controls to address unanticipated, emergent risks; however, empirical evidence indicates that such changes are relatively rare. This study aims to advance our understanding of the constraints on control adaptation by examining the role of governance inseparability, a condition in which partners' prior control choices limit the range and types of subsequent strategic control options. Using a longitudinal analysis of two mature alliances, we examine episodes where partners struggled to switch from or differentiate alliance controls compromised by emergent risks. We trace these constraints to a range of sources, including contractual commitments, alliance-specific regulation, and control consistency. Furthermore, we observe how partners introduced 'compensatory controls', that is, additional controls to remedy secondary control problems created by the existing control infrastructure.

Objective To compare the historical staffing patterns and organisational characteristics of Australian residential aged care facilities (RACFs) against the new minimum staffing standards recommended by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (RCACQS). Method Retrospective data analysis was used to compare the staffing levels and characteristics of 1705 RACFs (for 4 years, 2016–19) with the three new mandatory staffing requirements. De-identified datasets were provided by the RCACQS, obtained under its legal authority. Results Only 3.8% of RACFs have staffing levels at or above all three requirements. Although many (79.7%) already meet the requirement to have a registered nurse (RN) on-site for morning and afternoon shifts, few have staffing levels above requirements for total direct care per resident per day (10.4%) or care provided by an RN per resident per day (11.1%). Historical levels of on-site RNs, total direct care, and RN care vary significantly across facilities of different size, location and provider scale. Conclusion The new staffing standards, to be mandatory by 2023, prescribe minimum requirements significantly higher than existing levels, particularly in care per resident per day. Each of the three requirements will likely have a differential effect for different types of RACFs. What is known about the topic? International evidence suggests that introducing mandatory minimum staffing standards tends to increase the amount of care provided by staff in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). However, the impact of staffing standards is influenced by the stringency of the minimum threshold relative to existing staffing levels, the capacity of organisations to increase their staffing levels, and the specific way the regulation is formulated. What does this paper add? This paper explores the potential implications of the three national minimum staffing standards, to be in force by October 2023, specifying total direct care, care received by a registered nurse (RN), and an RN on-site. By examining the existing staffing levels of Australian RACFs, it identifies the extent to which facilities already meet the new standards and the characteristics of facilities with staffing levels above and below the three requirements (individually and in combination). What are the implications for practitioners? The study informs both policy and practice in relation to the likely effects of implementing the national minimum staffing standards for residential aged care in Australia. It demonstrates that the new minimum thresholds are likely to require substantial increases in staffing across the sector, both in terms of all direct care workers and RNs. It also shows that the three requirements are likely to have a differential effect for RACFs of different size, location and chain affiliation, thereby guiding policy about the future needs for Australia’s aged care workforce.