Control-style ambidexterity and information systems project performance: an expanded view of control activities

ABSTRACT

Information systems (IS) projects represent key building blocks of large-scale digital transformation and innovation initiatives. As a result, IS projects have become increasingly ambitious in terms of both goals and scale, making it even more challenging for managers to exercise control over such projects. While prior research focused primarily on the direct and interactive effects of formal and informal control modes on IS project performance, recent research directs attention to the importance of considering project managers’ control styles (i.e., how managers interact with controlees to enact controls). Corresponding studies also indicate that “either/or” control approaches – as opposed to “both/and” approaches – are no longer viable in today’s complex environment. As such, our study draws on an ambidexterity perspective to theoretically develop and empirically test the direct and interactive effects of control-style ambidexterity on IS project performance. Using matched-pair data from 146 IS projects (from 146 high-tech firms), we find that control-style ambidexterity improves project performance – directly and in combination with both formal and informal control. The study results contribute novel insights regarding the effective control of IS projects in the digital era and help explain mixed findings in prior literature, thereby facilitating continued theory development in the research area.

KEYWORDS:

• IS project control
• control-style ambidexterity
• control-mode ambidexterity
• IS project performance
• digital transformation and innovation
• matched-pair survey

Notes

1. We are grateful to one anonymous reviewer for her/his valuable comments on key conceptual differences between control and leadership styles.

2. Please note that, since earlier literature already offers convincing empirical support for the performance-enhancing effect of control-mode ambidexterity (i.e., for the effectiveness of “balanced” control portfolios), we refrain from presenting a dedicated hypothesis for this relationship and instead focus on the performance effects of control-style ambidexterity.

3. Technological specialities firms include manufacturing and service firms in various industries (e.g., computer and electronic, precision equipment tools, telecommunication equipment, medical equipment), all of which are included in NAICS 2012 industry classification under codes 51, 54, 334, and 335.

4. To measure IS project team heterogeneity, we adopted the three-item scale from Campion et al. (1993). This scale assesses team heterogeneity in terms of both demographic and functional attributes (i.e., background, expertise, and skills).

5. The survey participants that responded to the second follow-up reminder were considered as late respondents. Generally, late respondents are assumed to be similar to non-respondents (Keil et al., 2013).

6. As a robustness check, we also analysed our structural model with an alternative operationalisation of control-style ambidexterity. In particular, in line with earlier studies (e.g., T. A. Syed et al., 2020a; Benitez et al., 2017), we modelled control-style ambidexterity as a two-dimensional second-order construct in a reflective-formative type (Hair et al., 2017) and reran our data analyses. Similar to other studies testing alternative ambidexterity operationalisations (T. A. Syed et al., 2020a), the analysis results were consistent with the results reported in (Table 8) below, demonstrating the robustness of our study results.