The open systems model sees control as the "inter-relationship among inputs, outputs and the series of activities which lead to the

outputs." (Mullin 1985, 1989 p. 460) while

4. In the contingency approach which advocates that "there is no one, best structure" control is a matter of contingency of the situation. In numerous organisational studies control has been considered, usually from different perspectives. Thus, control has been examined in relation to power and influence. Tannenbaum for instance, defines control as "any process by which a person or group determines (i.e. "intentionally affects") the behaviour of another person or group, in other words, causes someone else to do what they want them to do." (Tannenbaum 1962 in D. Pugh, S. Hickson, G. Hinings 1983 p.79) While D. Cherrington (1989) confronts control as the "epitome of influence" (p.727).

Control has been referred to in organisational theories with regard to authority. (Blau and Scott 1962) According to Blau "authority is deemed necessary for co-ordinating and controlling large organisations."

(Blau 1964, p.222). Efficiency is also interrelated with control (Arrow 1964). Furthermore, it is often a concept of a control viewed in conjunction with employees' emotional well-being and satisfaction along with the performance of the organisation (T.K, Das 1989). The "regularity of behaviour in organisation" is defined in control terms by Pennings and Woiceshyn (1987) while for E. Lawler (1976) control is the reason for the creation of three major human problems for organisation : rigid bureaucratic behaviour, inaccurate information and resistance.

Regardless of the approach or perspective, all systems of control, which may be as diverse as "the creation of a moral machinery, through the development of piece-work to the introduction of scientific management and human relations, although they all have implications for the structure of organisation, were oriented to individuals and groups within organisations ..." (S. Clegg and D. Dunkerley 1980, p.483) The authors of this quote were clearly influenced by the labour process approach. Labour process studies illuminate significantly the above point through the evolution of control. In this literature it has been conceptualized that several systems of control were initially developed as means of the capitalist labour process (Clegg and Dunkerley 1980). Subsequently, during its historical development control has undergone various changes in relation to factors such as the size of the firms.

In the nineteenth century, the prevailing system of control was the "simple" one of "direct control" and was exercised over employees by the bosses of small business. This system was not based on a particular

structure and thus, it was characterized by the arbitrary discretion of the employer. (R. Edwards 1979). Simple direct control was consequently developed into entrepreneurial control, which was also informal and unstructured. A later development was the development of hierarchical control marked by the growth of the firm. (R. Edwards 1979).

Even the hierarchical control which was based on the boss' (foreman, supervisor, manager) rights to hire and fire employees, to direct their work, to evaluate and promote or demote, to discipline them, to arrange rewards; in other words to act as the entrepreneurs have done "in the arbitrary, idiosyncratic and unencumbered way" did not solve the increased need for control a firm grew. (R. Edwards 1979).

With the development of scientific management the idea of technical control appeared. Scientific management promised a resolution to the control problem which gave rise to efficiency and greater control. "Taylorism'" in management seemed to apply "scientific methods" and was characterized by extreme rigidity. Control was exercised through three elements : the direction of the work task, the evaluation of the work done and the reward and punishment system. (P. Edwards 1979). Taylorism was not limited to production workers, as all the previous systems had been, but in early 1917 it was also applied to the clerical workforce (Thompson 1983).

"Taylorism" appears "to dominate the world of production" and the

work was organised under Taylor's principles (Braveman 1974).

However, R. Edwards (1979) argues that Taylorism was not a widely-

tried system. "The extent and incidence of scientific management has always been something of a mystery " he states, (p. 101).

Moreover, regardless of the extent to which scientific control was implemented, it failed to resolve the crisis and capitalists sought for new forms of control.

By the end of the nineteenth century, firms had grown dramatically and the staff on the other hand had started to resist what appeared as increasingly arbitrary rules. Yet, the labour movement was maturing and a more structural form of control emerged.

Another kind of technical control "emerged from employers' experience in attempting to control the production operation of the firm." (P. Edwards 1979, p. 20). Technical control utilized punishment to obtain compliance and it, as Taylorism had also done, gave rise to waves of employee resistance. Therefore,it was replaced by another structural form of control which, however, was more sophisticated and impersonal (R. Edwards 1979).

Bureaucratic control appears in the post-1945 period attempting to eliminate the prior forms of control. Its superiority was based on "systematic administrative structures." As Thompson (1983) states "it routinizes the functions and procedures of management, stratifies work and job titles and governs appointments and promotion by impersonal rules."

offices for controlling white-collar staff, but its success "impelled firms to apply the system more broadly." (R. Edwards p.21). As R. Edwards remarks, bureaucratic control constitutes the "managerial revolution" of the modem corporations, as it can apply to the office as well as to the production lines. The basis of this control is the impersonal force of rules or organisational policy. "In the most fundamental aspect" remarks R. Edwards "bureaucratic control institutionalized the exercise of hierarchical power within the firm. The definition and direction of work tasks, the evaluation of workers' performances and the distribution of rewards and imposition of punishments all came to depend upon established rules and procedures, elaborately and systematically laid out." (p. 131).

This impersonality involves an impersonal control technique which leads supervisors to detach themselves from their own feelings, attributing to the rules the responsibility for their own organisational behaviour. Rules also benefit managers in another way; they dictate unchangeable repetition of several organisational actions without repetition of instructions by the managers (A. Gouldner 1954). Furthermore, the rules alter the role and the power of supervision as the supervisors are also subject to supposedly objective rules and procedures. (Thompson 1983).

As R. Edwards suggests there are three basic elements through which control operates: